Service Levels for EEA2 Applications

Dear Sir or Madam,

After sending various e-mails to your agency attempting to get
information as to why EEA2 applications (aka Residence Cards) are
taking an inordinate time to process, I have had no success in
getting any information. Multiple queries on search engines such as
google have shown frustration by your customers as to why there is
such a long time to process an application under Immigration
(European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (a search on "eea2
processing time" in google can easily illustrate the point).

As such, I am requesting the following from the UKBA to shed light
as to why applications are taking such a long time to process:

Percentage of applications decided within the service level as
stipulated under section 1.9 of chapter 5 "Residence Card
Applications" in European Casework Instructions
(http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...)
(the Six Month Rule) since the implementation of Immigration
(European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

Number of applications from implementation of the Immigration
(European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 that have been decided
outside of the service level section 1.9 of chapter 5 "Residence
Card Applications" in European Casework Instructions
(http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...)
(the Six Month Rule) since the implementation of Immigration
(European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

Notes, minutes, e-mails and other such information in relation to
changing policy for publishing processing times for applications
under the remit of Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations
2006. (e.g.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/euciti...).

Notes, minutes, e-mails and other such policy papers stipulating
the UKBA's plan of approach to achieve acceptable service levels as
per the implementation of Immigration (European Economic Area)
Regulations 2006 (e.g. the six month rule as defined in section 1.9
of chapter 5 "Residence Card Applications" in European Casework
Instructions
(http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...)
(the Six Month Rule) (e.g. what steps are being taken to address
the current backlog of applications).

Number of cases and details of where the UKBA and Home Office has
been exposed to damages or settled prior to an application to the
court in instances where the UKBA have been negligent in applying
Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 in particular
the six month rule as defined in section 1.9 of chapter 5
"Residence Card Applications" in European Casework Instructions
(http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...)
(the Six Month Rule).

Notes, minutes, e-mails and policy statements in relation to the
permitting of applications under application EEA2 to have their
identity documents returned to them during the processing of the
EEA2 application since the implementation of Immigration (European
Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

Service level calculations (percentages acceptable) of applications
under the EEA2 application where the application has requested that
their identity documents are returned to them during the processing
of the EEA2 application since the implementation of Immigration
(European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

The complaints manual as defined in various casework documents as
maintained by the UKBA.

Number of applications where escalation to the EU Solvit network
has been initiated due to applications falling outside of the
service level as defined in section 1.9 of chapter 5 "Residence
Card Applications" in European Casework Instructions
(http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...)
(the Six Month Rule) since the implementation of Immigration
(European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

Number of applications where escalation to a UK or European Member
of Parliament has been initiated due to applications falling
outside of the service level as defined in section 1.9 of chapter 5
"Residence Card Applications" in European Casework Instructions
(http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...)
(the Six Month Rule) since the implementation of Immigration
(European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

I hope I can count on your prompt attention to this matter.

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Ref: 12349

I write in response to your letter dated 11 August 2009, the
contents of which are duly noted.

In your response, you make a claim that the cost to provision this
request would exceed the £600 threshold as stipulated under the
Freedom of Information Act. I acknowledge that some of these
responses may fall under that threshold.

However, I dispute your finding that points 1, 2, 5 and 10 would
exceed the cost of £600 to provision. The UK Border Agency has
already provided some of this information as evidenced in written
answers to Hansard (column 166W pt 0038 dated 1 June 2009). The
text of your response can be found here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

You have further provided similar statistics to Hansard on the 29
October 2007 (column 927W pt 0073) as evidenced here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

As I am asking for an update on statistics and basically
interpretation and recalculation of the aforementioned, I can not
see how this is a costly or onerous activity.

Further, your response to point 8 is not what I requested. For
avoidance of doubt you make reference to a complaints manual in
your annual report to the complaints audit committee (2007-2008)

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...

The reference to this manual is found in points 27-33 of the report
as found in page 40. There are several other references as well. It
is this manual, that I would like under my FOI request.

As you have asked me to clarify my request, can you please accept
clarification on the following.

I would like points 1,2,5 and 10 on my original request to be
processed by your team. As I have provided to you already, this
should not be an onerous task and therefore should be satisfied in
sufficient time.

I have clarified my request on point 8 and would like this
processed per the clarification that I have provided.

I acknowledge that you do not have the information under point 9 of
my request.

I note that points 3, 4 and 6 of my original request are likely
costly and withdraw them at this time, to consider how I may best
form these request to conform to the constraints of the freedom of
information act.

I would appreciate your prompt acknowledgement of this
clarification so as to prevent an escalation to your internal
review process.

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap

Dear Sir or Madam,

ref: 12439

Regarding your response to my freedom of information request on the
11th of August, I have clarified my request as per your
instruction. Over five days has passed and I note that your process
normally allows for an acknowledgement of any FOI requests within
that window.

Can you please let me know if the clarification that I submitted is
acceptable and is being worked on.

I would prefer to not have to raise this to an internal review
process.

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Can you please let me know the status of this application before I
escalate for an internal review. It is over 20 days from the date
that I resubmitted and this is an additional 20 days from the time
it took for you to respond requesting a clarification. I would
appreciate a response with an update by some point today.

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Thank you for your response. However I sent an e-mail to you on the
11th of August where I refined this request. The details of this
e-mail I have included following this e-mail.

I am rather disappointed that your team have appeared to have
either lost my clarification or are intentionally being vexatious
in responding to my query. I would appreciate from the refined
request that I have included below if you can by close of business
today let me know when I can have the refined information (as I
have allowed 20 days for the refined request). Otherwise, I will
tomorrow be escalating this for internal review.

Regards,

C Gillstrap

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Ref: 12439

I write in response to your letter dated 11 August 2009, the
contents of which are duly noted.

In your response, you make a claim that the cost to provision this
request would exceed the £600 threshold as stipulated under the
Freedom of Information Act. I acknowledge that some of these
responses may fall under that threshold.

However, I dispute your finding that points 1, 2, 5 and 10 would
exceed the cost of £600 to provision. The UK Border Agency has
already provided some of this information as evidenced in written
answers to Hansard (column 166W pt 0038 dated 1 June 2009). The
text of your response can be found here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

You have further provided similar statistics to Hansard on the 29
October 2007 (column 927W pt 0073) as evidenced here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

As I am asking for an update on statistics and basically
interpretation and recalculation of the aforementioned, I can not
see how this is a costly or onerous activity.

Further, your response to point 8 is not what I requested. For
avoidance of doubt you make reference to a complaints manual in
your annual report to the complaints audit committee (2007-2008)

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/siteco...

The reference to this manual is found in points 27-33 of the report
as found in page 40. There are several other references as well. It
is this manual, that I would like under my FOI request.

As you have asked me to clarify my request, can you please accept
clarification on the following.

I would like points 1,2,5 and 10 on my original request to be
processed by your team. As I have provided to you already, this
should not be an onerous task and therefore should be satisfied in
sufficient time.

I have clarified my request on point 8 and would like this
processed per the clarification that I have provided.

I acknowledge that you do not have the information under point 9 of
my request.

I note that points 3, 4 and 6 of my original request are likely
costly and withdraw them at this time, to consider how I may best
form these request to conform to the constraints of the freedom of
information act.

I would appreciate your prompt acknowledgement of this
clarification so as to prevent an escalation to your internal
review process.

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

As it has been 5 days since you acknowledge that this request is
outstanding, can you please provide me an actual date for when I
will receive the data that I requested.

I remind IND that it has now been over 40 days since I made my
initial request and over 20 days since I refined my request per
your instructions. I do hope that I am not going to have to wait an
additional 20 days to receive the data that I have asked for.

I would appreciate a response by close of business on the 16th
detailing when I will be able to get the information that I
requested. Otherwise, I will be forced to raise this for internal
review as this well past reasonable expectations for tardiness

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap

Dear Sir or Madam,

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 'Service Levels for EEA2 Applications'.

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

It has been over 40 days from my initial request, where at 20 days
I was asked to re-frame my request to conform to FoI Act
guidelines. I promptly refined the request and over 20 days from
that have passed where I have yet to receive the information.
Multiple queries with the FoI team have not resulted with a revised
time for the request. I would appreciate a prompt review of this as
I view the behaviour from the FoI team to be vexatious in nature.

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

Dear Sir or Madam,

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 'Service Levels for EEA2 Applications'.
I requested an internal review on 16 September due to the delay in
providing the information I requested. I am happy to report that on
23 September, Ms. Deans from your Liverpool office provided a
substantial response to my request.

However, Ms. Deans alleges in her response that she is unable to
provide the complaints manual for the UKBA as this has been
withdrawn subject to redrafting. Whilst I appreciate that policy
and operational documents are redrafted in light of changes in
policy or operating models, I can not believe that the UKBA are
operating without any guidance or operating procedures in dealing
with complaints from your customers.

Whilst the manual may have been withdrawn, I still believe there is
sufficient public interest in this information. Even if the
information provided in this document is out of date or subject to
review, denying access to such information on the basis of revision
does not appear to satisfy the goals of the freedom of information
act.

I would appreciate that in your internal review, if you can review
the release of this manual or any equivalent or comparative
guidance that is used within the UKBA. As the manual is already
cited by the complaints audit commission reports, I think
understanding the operational processes in dealing with complaints
is definitely in the public interest of how the UKBA operates.

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

I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter as to date,
it has taken over 40 days to get the subset of information that the
UKBA has provided so far.

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have yet to hear any confirmation on my request for an internal
review for my FOI request. In the internal review, I asked you to
review the release of the complaints manual as maintained by the
UKBA. Can you please provide me an update as to whether the review
has been acknowledged and when you expect the review to complete?

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Many thanks for your acknowledgement of my request for an internal
review. Can you please confirm whether you are acknowledging from
the date I submitted the review or from today?

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Many thanks for your confirmation for my internal review on the
20th of October and the subsequent follow up on the 21st.

As it is now 22 working days from the date of my request for an
internal review, can I please have an update of where this internal
review stands?

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap

Dear Sir or Madam,

Following from my e-mail on the 23rd, may I please have an update
on the status of the internal review for my FOI request. It is now
23 days from when I requested this review and I remind UKBA that
they were negligent in responding to the initial request.

ICO guidance stipulates that you should be responding to internal
review requests promptly and in all cases no later than 20 days
from request (either with a result of the review, or informing me
of an extension to no later than 40 days from the request).

I would appreciate an update and hope that I will not have to
escalate this to the ICO.

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

Dear Sir or Madam,

Following my previous e-mail's to the UKBA, can I please have the
courtesy of a reply as to the status of the internal review for
this request.

Yours faithfully,

C Gillstrap

Dear Information Access,

Being that I already previously complained to the ICO on this
request, and being that you responded on the 11th of January that
this was being reviewed. What is the status of this request? There
has been more than ample time to complete an internal review and
your delay has definitely gone against the spirit of the FOI. I
would prefer to not to have to escalate this to the ICO again.

Yours sincerely,

C Gillstrap