Regulation 24(2) Police Regulations 2003

Dear Mr. Old,

Thank you for your correspondence of 7th March. I am concerned to note
your allegation that South Yorkshire Police has failed to comply with its
statutory responsibilities. I have conducted an extensive search of our
records and can find no trace of your request. Notwithstanding any action
you may wish to take regarding our apparent failure, would you please be
good enough to again transmit your request in order that we may make
efforts to locate the information you require. Additionally could you also
please send any acknowledgement or other correspondence you may have
received from us in relation to this request in order to assist me in
locating your original request.

Philip Crick
Information Compliance Clerk
South Yorkshire Police
Information Compliance Unit
Professional Standards Department
Unit 20 Sheffield 35A Business Park
Churchill Way
Sheffield
S35 2PY

Internal T/N
711793
711798

External T/N
0114 292 1793
0114 292 1798

Email - [South Yorkshire Police request email]

Citizen Focus: Improving Satisfaction and Confidence is a Priority for the
Force

William Old To FOI requests at South
<[FOI #7750 email]> Yorkshire Police
<[South Yorkshire Police request email]>
07/03/2009 05:58 cc
Subject Re: Freedom of Information
request - Regulation 24(2)
Police Regulations 2003

Dear Sir or Madam,

I note that South Yorkshire Police has failed to comply with its
statutory responsibilities under the Act, and I will now write to
the Information Commissioner to inform him of your failure to
comply and for a ruling on any enforcement action necessary as a
consequence.

Yours sincerely,

William Old

show quoted sections

Mr William Old

[FOI #7750 email]

09 March 2009

Dear Mr Old

Freedom of Information Request - Reference No: 20090103

Thank you for your request for information in relation to:

My enquiry relates to your force policy for the situation where an
officer has been “temporarily promoted” to a higher rank (i.e. is
not “acting-up”, thereby receiving a “temporary salary” as provided
for in Annex I to Regulation 27 of the Police Regulations 2003),
has in due course reverted to his or her substantive rank, and has
subsequently been promoted again (whether substantively or again
only temporarily).

My request is for:

(a) any force policy or procedure document from which it would be
determined whether such an officer’s salary would take account of
that previous period in the higher rank – in accordance with
Reg.24(2) – or would alternatively be re-started back at the lowest
salary scale point for the higher rank, at the commencement of each
and every period of service in that higher rank; and...

(b) any force policy or procedure document that reported,
considered or reviewed the implications of the decision in Gill v
Chief Constable of Merseyside [Liverpool County Court, judgement
given on 28 August 2007], in which unequivocal judgement was given
against Merseyside Police by HH Judge Platts because the latter
procedure (as referred to above) is unlawful and does not comply
with Regulation 24(2).

I am concerned that we did not receive your original request and I will
look into this matter immediately. In the meantime we will process your
request and I will endeavour to get your response to you as soon as
feasibly possible.

Your request will now be considered and you will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject
to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party. In some circumstances South Yorkshire Police may be unable to
achieve this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and given a
revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information you request. If this is the case you will be informed and
the 20 working day timescale will be suspended until we receive payment
from you. If you choose not to make a payment then your request will remain
unanswered.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

Please Note – Responses are published on South Yorkshire Police disclosure
log, which can be found at the following link:

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/disc...

If you have any enquiries please contact the Information Compliance Unit on
the numbers below.

Yours faithfully,

Joelle White
Freedom of Information Officer
South Yorkshire Police
Information Compliance Unit
Professional Standards Department
Unit 20 Sheffield 35A Business Park
Churchill Way
Sheffield
S35 2PY

Internal T/N

1797
1798

External T/N

0114 292 1797
0114 292 1798

South Yorkshire Police provides you the right to request a re-examination
of your case under its review procedure (copy enclosed). If you decide to
request such a review and having followed the Constabulary’s full process
you are still dissatisfied, then you have the right to direct your comments
to Information Commissioner who will give it consideration.(See attached
file: Appeal Process for Freedom of Information.pdf)

Citizen Focus: Improving Satisfaction and Confidence is a Priority for the
Force

William Old
<request-7750-9bb
6f341@whatdotheyk To
now.com> [email address]
cc
09/03/2009 13:49
Subject
Re: Freedom of Information request
- Regulation 24(2) Police
Regulations 2003

Dear Sir or Madam,

You can view the entire history of this request, including the
original, at:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

However, in case you don't have access to the Internet, I have
reproduced the original request below.

Yours sincerely,

William Old

Original request:

Dear Sir or Madam,

My enquiry relates to your force policy for the situation where an
officer has been “temporarily promoted” to a higher rank (i.e. is
not “acting-up”, thereby receiving a “temporary salary” as provided
for in Annex I to Regulation 27 of the Police Regulations 2003),
has in due course reverted to his or her substantive rank, and has
subsequently been promoted again (whether substantively or again
only temporarily).

My request is for:

(a) any force policy or procedure document from which it would be
determined whether such an officer’s salary would take account of
that previous period in the higher rank – in accordance with
Reg.24(2) – or would alternatively be re-started back at the lowest
salary scale point for the higher rank, at the commencement of each
and every period of service in that higher rank; and...

(b) any force policy or procedure document that reported,
considered or reviewed the implications of the decision in Gill v
Chief Constable of Merseyside [Liverpool County Court, judgement
given on 28 August 2007], in which unequivocal judgement was given
against Merseyside Police by HH Judge Platts because the latter
procedure (as referred to above) is unlawful and does not comply
with Regulation 24(2).

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Old

Thank you for your e-mail. The statement of 20 working days is a standard
proforma on each acknowledgement from the date the authority receives a
request, in line with the Act.

As explained in our previous e-mail, South Yorkshire Police did not receive
your request when you initially sent it.

I can assure you that I am looking into the matter and will endeavour to
respond to you as soon as possible. I have marked your request as "urgent"
and will deal with as soon as the information is collated.

Regards

Joelle White
Freedom of Information Officer

South Yorkshire Police
Information Compliance Unit
Professional Standards Department
Unit 20 Sheffield 35A Business Park
Churchill Way
Sheffield
S35 2PY

Internal T/N
711793
711798

External T/N
0114 292 1793
0114 292 1798

Email - [South Yorkshire Police request email]

Citizen Focus: Improving Satisfaction and Confidence is a Priority for the
Force

William Old
<request-7750-9bb
6f341@whatdotheyk To
now.com> [email address]
cc
09/03/2009 15:53
Subject
Re: Freedom of Information request
- Regulation 24(2) Police
Regulations 2003

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for the acknowledgement, but in response to your comment
"Your request will now be considered and you will receive a
response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as
defined by the Act", your force has of course already had more than
20 days to respond, and this response is overdue. I suggest that a
FoI request for your force's mail server logs will reveal that the
message was delivered but that it has since been deleted or
misrouted as a result of human error.

Yours sincerely,

William Old

show quoted sections

Mr William Old

[FOI #7750 email]

26 March 2009

Dear Mr Old

Freedom of Information Request - Reference No: 20090103

Thank you for your request for information regarding Force Policy – Police
Officers “Acting Up”, received by the Information Compliance Unit at South
Yorkshire Police on 09 March 2009. I note you seek access to the following
information:

(a) any force policy or procedure document from which it would be
determined whether such an officer’s salary would take account of
that previous period in the higher rank – in accordance with
Reg.24(2) – or would alternatively be re-started back at the lowest
salary scale point for the higher rank, at the commencement of each
and every period of service in that higher rank; and...

(b) any force policy or procedure document that reported, considered
or reviewed the implications of the decision in Gill v Chief
Constable of Merseyside [Liverpool County Court, judgement given on
28 August 2007], in which unequivocal judgement was given against
Merseyside Police by HH Judge Platts because the latter procedure (as
referred to above) is unlawful and does not comply with Regulation
24(2).N

Your request for information has now been considered and I am not able to
supply the information you have requested.

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires South Yorkshire
Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information
is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:

states that fact,
specifies the exemption in question and
states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

The exemption applicable to the information is Absolute in that it falls
under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This states
‘Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than
under section 1 is exempt information’.

All the information in relation to your request is readily and freely
available on the South Yorkshire Police internet website, at –

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/publ...

Please note, the “Police Acting Rank and Temporary Promotion” policy is
currently under review and is subject to change in the very near future to
reflect the intent of Police Regulations 24 (2) 2003.

I hope the information provided is of help to your enquiries and I would
like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in South
Yorkshire Police.

Yours sincerely

Joelle White
Freedom of Information Officer
Information Compliance Unit
0114 292 1793

Please note that police forces in the United Kingdom are routinely required
to provide information and statistics to government bodies and the
recording criteria is set nationally. However, the systems used for
recording these figures are not generic, nor are the procedures used
locally in capturing the data. It should be noted that for these reasons
this forces response to your questions should not be used for the
comparison purposes with any other response you may receive.

South Yorkshire Police provides you the right to request a re-examination
of your case under its review procedure (copy enclosed). If you decide to
request such a review and having followed the Constabulary’s full process
you are still dissatisfied, then you have the right to direct your comments
to the Information Commissioner who will give it consideration.

The South Yorkshire Police in complying with their statutory duty under
sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the
enclosed information will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed
information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the
copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of the attached
information should be addressed to The Force Solicitor, South Yorkshire
Police, Police Headquarters, Snig Hill, Sheffield, S3 8LY.(See attached
file: Appeal Process for Freedom of Information.pdf)

Citizen Focus: Improving Satisfaction and Confidence is a Priority for the
Force

William Old
<request-7750-9bb
6f341@whatdotheyk To
now.com> [email address]
cc
09/03/2009 13:49
Subject
Re: Freedom of Information request
- Regulation 24(2) Police
Regulations 2003

Dear Sir or Madam,

You can view the entire history of this request, including the
original, at:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

However, in case you don't have access to the Internet, I have
reproduced the original request below.

Yours sincerely,

William Old

Original request:

Dear Sir or Madam,

My enquiry relates to your force policy for the situation where an
officer has been “temporarily promoted” to a higher rank (i.e. is
not “acting-up”, thereby receiving a “temporary salary” as provided
for in Annex I to Regulation 27 of the Police Regulations 2003),
has in due course reverted to his or her substantive rank, and has
subsequently been promoted again (whether substantively or again
only temporarily).

My request is for:

(a) any force policy or procedure document from which it would be
determined whether such an officer’s salary would take account of
that previous period in the higher rank – in accordance with
Reg.24(2) – or would alternatively be re-started back at the lowest
salary scale point for the higher rank, at the commencement of each
and every period of service in that higher rank; and...

(b) any force policy or procedure document that reported,
considered or reviewed the implications of the decision in Gill v
Chief Constable of Merseyside [Liverpool County Court, judgement
given on 28 August 2007], in which unequivocal judgement was given
against Merseyside Police by HH Judge Platts because the latter
procedure (as referred to above) is unlawful and does not comply
with Regulation 24(2).

show quoted sections

Mr William Old

[FOI #7750 email]

30 March 2009

Dear Mr Old

Freedom of Information Request - Reference No: 20090157

Thank you for your request for information in relation to:

I note the fact that you claim the policy is under review. However,
I'm puzzled by your reference to "the intent of Police Regulations
24 (2) 2003", as your Web site confirms that South Yorkshire Police
is acting unlawfully because the policy stated demonstrates your
non-compliance with Regulation 24(2) and hence your force is liable
to claims from all officers so affected for underpayment of salary.

Should you in fact reverse this unlawful policy, I will make a
further request under FoI 2000 for details of how many officers
have been underpaid as a consequence of this unlawful policy, and
of what steps the force has taken to pay compensation accordingly.

Your request will now be considered and you will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject
to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party. In some circumstances South Yorkshire Police may be unable to
achieve this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and given a
revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information you request. If this is the case you will be informed and
the 20 working day timescale will be suspended until we receive payment
from you. If you choose not to make a payment then your request will remain
unanswered.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

Please Note – Responses are published on South Yorkshire Police disclosure
log, which can be found at the following link:

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/disc...

If you have any enquiries please contact the Information Compliance Unit on
the numbers below.

Yours faithfully,

Joelle White
Freedom of Information Officer
South Yorkshire Police
Information Compliance Unit
Professional Standards Department
Unit 20 Sheffield 35A Business Park
Churchill Way
Sheffield
S35 2PY

Internal T/N

1797
1798

External T/N

0114 292 1797
0114 292 1798

South Yorkshire Police provides you the right to request a re-examination
of your case under its review procedure (copy enclosed). If you decide to
request such a review and having followed the Constabulary’s full process
you are still dissatisfied, then you have the right to direct your comments
to Information Commissioner who will give it consideration.(See attached
file: Appeal Process for Freedom of Information.pdf)

Citizen Focus: Improving Satisfaction and Confidence is a Priority for the
Force

William Old
<request-7750-9bb
6f341@whatdotheyk To
now.com> [email address]
cc
26/03/2009 21:44
Subject
Internal review of Freedom of
Information request - Regulation
24(2) Police Regulations 2003

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your response, which partially fulfills your
statutory obligations under the Act.

I note the fact that you claim the policy is under review. However,
I'm puzzled by your reference to "the intent of Police Regulations
24 (2) 2003", as your Web site confirms that South Yorkshire Police
is acting unlawfully because the policy stated demonstrates your
non-compliance with Regulation 24(2) and hence your force is liable
to claims from all officers so affected for underpayment of salary.

Should you in fact reverse this unlawful policy, I will make a
further request under FoI 2000 for details of how many officers
have been underpaid as a consequence of this unlawful policy, and
of what steps the force has taken to pay compensation accordingly.

However, you have not responded to the second part of my request,
labelled (b) in the original e-mail, and therefore I am requesting
an internal review into your non-response to this element of my
request, as there is no reference to Gill v CC Merseyside on the
Web site to which you refer.

Yours sincerely,

William Old

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Old

Thank you for your e-mail.

I will book on your new request and acknowledge this later today.

In relation to your internal review request. I would like to clarify, that
in my response, I stated that:

All the information in relation to your request is readily and
freely available on the South Yorkshire Police internet website, at
–

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/publ...

Therefore, we do not hold any information in relation to part (b) of your
request. Apologies if this was not clear in my initial response.

As we do not hold any information, are you still wishing South Yorkshire
Police to carry out an internal review of your Freedom of Information
Request 20090103?

Regards

Joelle White
Freedom of Information Officer

South Yorkshire Police
Information Compliance Unit
Professional Standards Department
Unit 20 Sheffield 35A Business Park
Churchill Way
Sheffield
S35 2PY

Internal T/N
711793
711798

External T/N
0114 292 1793
0114 292 1798

Email - [South Yorkshire Police request email]

Citizen Focus: Improving Satisfaction and Confidence is a Priority for the
Force

William Old
<request-7750-9bb
6f341@whatdotheyk To
now.com> [email address]
cc
26/03/2009 21:44
Subject
Internal review of Freedom of
Information request - Regulation
24(2) Police Regulations 2003

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your response, which partially fulfills your
statutory obligations under the Act.

I note the fact that you claim the policy is under review. However,
I'm puzzled by your reference to "the intent of Police Regulations
24 (2) 2003", as your Web site confirms that South Yorkshire Police
is acting unlawfully because the policy stated demonstrates your
non-compliance with Regulation 24(2) and hence your force is liable
to claims from all officers so affected for underpayment of salary.

Should you in fact reverse this unlawful policy, I will make a
further request under FoI 2000 for details of how many officers
have been underpaid as a consequence of this unlawful policy, and
of what steps the force has taken to pay compensation accordingly.

However, you have not responded to the second part of my request,
labelled (b) in the original e-mail, and therefore I am requesting
an internal review into your non-response to this element of my
request, as there is no reference to Gill v CC Merseyside on the
Web site to which you refer.

Yours sincerely,

William Old

show quoted sections

01 April 2009

Mr William Old

[FOI #7750 email]

Dear Mr Old

Freedom of Information Request - Reference No: 20090103

Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to the above Freedom
of Information request. I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail
requesting that South Yorkshire Police review its response to your request
for information which we received in our unit on 09 March 2009.

The review will be conducted in accordance with South Yorkshire Police’s
review procedure. The date of the appeal hearing has been set at 13 May
2009. The Panel will consist of Dr. Theresa Searl, Force Solicitor – Head
of Legal Services, Chief Superintendent Robert Varey – Head of Professional
Standards Department and Chief Superintendent Robert Sanderson – Basic
Command Unit Commander for Doncaster District. This may be subject to
change and you will be notified of any changes as and when they arise.

The Appeals Panel will contact you in due course with the result of their
findings.

Yours sincerely

Joelle White
Freedom of Information Officer
South Yorkshire Police
Information Compliance Unit
Professional Standards Department
Unit 20 Sheffield 35A Business Park
Churchill Way
Sheffield
S35 2PY

Internal T/N
1793
1798

External T/N
0114 292 1793
0114 292 1798

Email - [South Yorkshire Police request email]

Citizen Focus: Improving Satisfaction and Confidence is a Priority for the
Force

William Old
<request-7750-9bb
6f341@whatdotheyk To
now.com> [email address]
cc
30/03/2009 11:27
Subject
Internal review of Freedom of
Information request - Regulation
24(2) Police Regulations 2003

> As we do not hold any information, are you still wishing South
Yorkshire Police to carry out an internal review of your Freedom of
Information Request 20090103?

That request was originally to elicit the position with respect to
the case of Gill v CC Merseyside, which you have now clarified.
However, I must confess that I don't quite understand how your
force can possibly have decided to completely reverse your policy
on Reg.24(2) completely spontaneously, i.e. without having had any
minuted meetings or policy papers! Obviously, had there been any
such papers, these would have fallen into the scope of my request,
but you have declared that there are none.

As I find it strange that South Yorkshire Police apparently makes
such dramatic changes to its policies without any supporting
material whatsoever, I think that a review would be appropriate.

Yours sincerely,

William Old

show quoted sections

Mr Old

(See attached file: A.APPEAL WILLIAM OLD.doc)

(See attached file: A.LETTER WILLIAM OLD.doc)

Jane Soulsby
Secretary
Professional Standards Department
711874
(0114 292 1874)

Citizen Focus: Improving Satisfaction and Confidence is a Priority for the
Force

CITIZEN FOCUS: Our commitment is to understand what the public want – so that we deliver what they need.

Internet communications are not secure and therefore South Yorkshire Police cannot accept responsibility for any changes made to this message after it was sent. This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain privileged information and are intended for the intended recipient, if you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately and delete the message and any attachments from your computer. Do not disclose, distribute, or retain this e-mail or any part of it. In the case of a privately generated e-mail, the opinion expressed may not be the opinion of the South Yorkshire Police We believe but do not warrant that this e- mail and any attachments are virus free. You must therefore take full responsibility for virus checking. South Yorkshire Police reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through their networks