All information relating to vehicle incident on Totnes Avenue, Halewood on 23/06/2012

The request was refused by Merseyside Police.

Dear Merseyside Police,

Please supply me with all information held regarding the vehicle fire that took place at approximately 22:00 on the 23rd June 2012 in Totnes Avenue, Halewood. Please also include information relating to other related incidents in the area.

If the required information would exceed the cost limit, please supply as much information as possible while remaining under the cost limit.

Yours faithfully,

Simon Finnigan

Merseyside Police

Dear Mr. Finnigan,

I write in connection with your application for information which was
received by Merseyside Police on 25/06/2012. I note that you seek access to
the following information:

(Paraphrased) A specified incident in Totnes Avenue, Halewood on 23rd June
2012 and 'information relating to other related incidents in the area'.

To enable Merseyside Police to meet your request could you please provide
this office with further information. I provide some guidance that may
assist you more clearly to describe the information you require:

Could you please provide me with a time scale for the incidents that you
are interested in and clarify what you mean by the phrase, 'information
relating to other related incidents in the area'. Please define the area
that you are interested in.

After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered and you
will receive the information requested within the statutory time scale of
20 working days as defined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject
to the information not being exempt or containing reference to a third
party.

However, if the requested information has not been received by one month
after the above date, I will consider that you no longer wish to proceed
with this request and it will be treated as withdrawn.

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

Yours faithfully,

D Jackson
Disclosure Analyst
Merseyside Police
Information Bureau
PO BOX 59
LIVERPOOL
L69 1JD
Fax. 0151 777 7099

============================================================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.
============================================================

Dear Merseyside Police,

For time frame and area, please consider the area to be within approximately 25 miles of Totnes Avenue, and the time scale to be 24 hours either side of the time of the incident. Given that I would expect a relatively small number of incidents to be related to this original incident I would expect this to result in a small enough number of incidents to come within the cost limit. If the cost limit would be reached, then please provide information for the largest possible area that remains within the cost limit.

Yours faithfully,

Simon Finnigan

Merseyside Police

Dear Mr. Finnigan,

Reference No : DJ 128-12 (please quote in all correspondence)


Thank you for your clarification e-mail received by Merseyside Police on 02/07/2012. I note that your are seeking
information relating to:

(paraphrased) : A vehicle fire that took place on 23rd June 2012 in Totnes Avenue, Halewood, clarified to include
incidents within a 25 mile radius and within 24 hours before/after the incident in question.

Your request will be dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will now be considered.
You will receive a response within the statutory time-scale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the
information not being exempt nor containing a reference to a third party. In the event that we are not able to
achieve this deadline you will be informed at the earliest opportunity and given a revised time-scale.

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of the information you have requested. If this
is the case you will be informed and the 20 working day time scale will be suspended until we receive payment from
you.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transfer 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.


Yours faithfully,

D. Jackson
Disclosure Analyst
Merseyside Police
Information Bureau
Disclosure Unit
PO Box 59,
LIVERPOOL L69 1JD
Fax: 0151 777 7099
Email : [Merseyside Police request email]

============================================================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.
============================================================

Merseyside Police

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. Finnegan,

Reference No : DJ 128-12 Response

I write in connection with your request for information received on 25th
June 2012, which was suspended for clarification, concerning:

(Paraphrased) a vehicle fire that took place on 23rd June 2012 in Totnes
Avenue, Halewood, clarified to include incidents within a 25 mile radius
and within 24 hours before/after the incident in question.

The cost of providing you with the information is above the amount to which
we are legally required to respond i.e. the cost of locating and retrieving
the information exceeds the ‘appropriate level’ as stated in the Freedom of
Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004. It is estimated
that it would cost take in excess of 18 hours work to comply with your
request, which equates to the cost limit. Please see the response table for
further information.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts as
a Refusal Notice.

You may wish to consider resubmitting a refined application, having
considered the reason why the cost exemption is engaged, so that the new
application is within cost. However, under the duty in section 16 of the
Act, the duty to be helpful, information which was located before it was
know that the cost exemption was engaged is provided in the response table.

Response table - Section 12 cost exemption:

(See attached file: Response Table DJ 128-12(DJAN-8VLDC7).doc)

Complainant Rights:
Your attention is drawn to the below attached notice which details your
right of complaint.

Yours faithfully

D Jackson
Merseyside Police
Disclosure Unit
Information Bureau
PO BOX 59
LIVERPOOL
L69 1JD
fax: 0151 777 7031
E-mail: [Merseyside Police request email]

==========================================================

Making a complaint or appeal about your Freedom of Information response

We accept that sometimes you may not agree with the decision we’ve made
about your Freedom of Information request. If this is the case there is an
internal complaints procedure that you should follow.

You should make your complaint in writing to:

Merseyside Police
Force Information Governance Manager
Police Headquarters (ACU)
PO Box 59
LIVERPOOL
L69 1JD

It should detail:
q What the original request was
q The individual reference number (stated above)
q The nature of the complaint
q Why you feel you should have received more information

Your complaint will be fully investigated and will be dealt with by a staff
member who was not involved in the original decision. We will write to you
to advise the outcome of your complaint.

If you are dissatisfied with the results of your complaint you have the
right to appeal to the Information Commissioner. He can be contacted at:

The Office of the Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
WILMSLOW
SK9 5AF

More information is available from the Information Commissioner's website

http://www.ico.gov.uk
============================================================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.
============================================================

Dear Merseyside Police,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Merseyside Police's handling of my FOI request 'All information relating to vehicle incident on Totnes Avenue, Halewood on 23/06/2012'.

My request has been rejected on the basis that it would exceed the cost limit - however in my clarification I clearly stated "If the cost limit would be reached, then please provide information for the largest possible area that remains within the cost limit.".

I therefore find it unacceptable to refuse to provide as much information as possible based on the cost limit. I also note that no advice was given in how to remake a similar request likely to come within the cost limit, as you are legally obliged to do.

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

Yours faithfully,

Simon Finnigan

Merseyside Police

Dear Mr. Finnigan,

I acknowledge receipt of your email (received 27/07/2012) requesting that
Merseyside Police review its response to your request for information
concerning:

All information relating to vehicle incident on Totnes Avenue, Halewood on
23/06/2012

An internal review will be undertaken surrounding our FOI response to the
above subject - this will be considered independently by the Information
Governance Manager. The review will be conducted in accordance with the
Merseyside Police review procedure and every effort will be made to have a
response to you no later than the 24th August 2012 (20 working days from
receipt of internal review request, as advocated by the ICO). However, if
it becomes clear that the review will not be completed by this date you
will be contacted.

Yours sincerely,

Mr D May
Disclosure Analyst
Information Bureau
Merseyside Police

============================================================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.
============================================================

Merseyside Police

Dear Mr. Finnigan,

further to the email of 11:45hrs on 27/07/2012 acknowledging your request
for an internal review of the response provided (our ref. DJ128-12) I would
inform you that the internal review has been passed to me for consideration
under the duty of public authorities to review responses when requested to
do so under the provisions at Part VI of thes45 code of practice. This is
an interim response only and not a result of the review process.

It is important to be aware that the internal review stage is an
opportunity to consider a request completely afresh. Compliance with the
legislation is an important component of the internal review process but
all relevant considerations should be revisited and appropriately
documented. It is both a review of the response provided and an opportunity
to provide further and perhaps different information in the light of
further consideration.

Your initial request was:

Please supply me with all information held regarding the vehicle fire that
took place at approximately 22:00 on the 23rd June 2012 in Totnes Avenue,
Halewood. Please also include information relating to other related
incidents in the area. If the required information would exceed the cost
limit, please supply as much information as possible while remaining under
the cost limit.

This was later clarified in the following terms:

For time frame and area, please consider the area to be within
approximately 25 miles of Totnes Avenue, and the time scale to be 24 hours
either side of the time of the incident. Given that I would expect a
relatively small number of incidents to be related to this original
incident I would expect this to result in a small enough number of
incidents to come within the cost limit. If the cost limit would be
reached, then please provide information for the largest possible area
that remains within the cost limit.

It is I suggest this clarification that brought about the use of section 12
(excess time and cost) due to the high number of potential matches of
incidents using the parameters suggested in the clarification.

In the response provided at 13:13hrs on 20/07/2012 the responder wrote 'You
may wish to consider resubmitting a refined application, having considered
the reason why the cost exemption is engaged, so that the new application
is within cost'.

Your choice was to request an internal review of the existing response. At
this early stage of the review it may be helpful if the potential to refine
the response is re-visited. In that way you may refine the request or
confirm your request for a reviewed response to the request as it currently
stands.

May I suggest that at this point the request and the clarification is
re-defined to read as below or similar as per your approval:

'Please supply me with all information held regarding the vehicle fire that
took place at approximately 22:00 on the 23rd June 2012 in Totnes Avenue,
Halewood. Please also include any other incident information where
information is held by Merseyside Police indicating that it relates in any
way to this incident.'

A request in these terms will remove the need for a speculative search of
the many incidents identified within the parameters of the earlier
clarification of the request and should eliminate the exemption at section
12. It also removes the limitations of that clarification should there be
related information outside of those parameters.This does not mean that
other exemptions may not become applicable but that is perhaps to be
expected by the subject matter of the request and the
constraints/provisions of the FOI Act.

Perhaps is will assist you at this stage to point out that accepted
interpretation of the exemption at section 12 is that where a reasonable
estimate has been made that the appropriate limit would be exceeded, there
is no requirement for a public authority to undertake work up to the limit.
I would reiterate the responders words that the information provided in the
earlier response was under the provisions of section 16 of the Act (the
duty to be helpful).

I await your response concerning the suggested refinement of the request or
otherwise.

Yours sincerely

G.E. Thomas
Disclosure Manager.

show quoted sections

Merseyside Police

Dear Mr. Finnigan,

further to my email of 31st July 2012 I note that you have not provided any
response to my suggestion that a revision of the request be considered. It
is my intention to respond to your request for an internal review within 20
working days of receiving it i.e. by Friday 24th August 2012 at the latest.
In the absence of any further communication from you by 22nd August 2012 I
must discount the opportunity for you to amend the request to provide time
to review the response from Merseyside Police to the request as it
currently stands.

Yours sincerely,

G.E. Thomas
Disclosure Manager.

============================================================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.
============================================================

Merseyside Police

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Finnigan

I confirm that the internal review has been concluded as to how Merseyside
Police dealt with your Freedom of Information request, reference DJ128/12,
in which you asked:

'Please supply me with all information held regarding the vehicle fire that
took place at approximately 22:00 on the 23rd June 2012 in Totnes Avenue,
Halewood. Please also include information relating to other related
incidents in the area.If the required information would exceed the cost
limit, please supply as much information as possible while remaining under
the cost limit'.

Following a request for clarification you clarified your request as
follows:

'For time frame and area, please consider the area to be within
approximately 25 miles of Totnes Avenue, and the time scale to be 24 hours
either side of the time of the incident. Given that I would expect a
relatively small number of incidents to be related
to this original incident I would expect this to result in a small enough
number of incidents to come within the cost limit. If the cost limit
would be reached, then please provide information for the largest
possible area that remains within the cost limit'.

Decision
Your request for information has been considered and I have decided to
uphold the original decision to not provide the information that you have
requested.

Section 17, Freedom of Information Act, 2000, requires Merseyside Police,
when refusing to provide such information (because the information is
exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:
(a) states that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Reason for Decision:
Please see the response and the additional information in the attached
internal review response table. It is important that you do so because it
contains the full response and much more detail than is present in this
email.

(See attached file: Internal Review Response Table DJ 128-12.doc)

This communication therefore serves as a Refusal Notice under the FOI Act.

Under Section 16 of the FOI Act, (the duty to assist), I refer you to my
letter of 31st July 2012 in which was intended to provide assistance to
refine your request in an attempt to bring it below the 'section 12
limits'. I would again point out that if you wish to re-submit your request
in those or similar terms then Merseyside Police will provide a further
response.

Complaints
If having read this response and the attached table and you remain
dissatified with the response provided you may to provide a new request.
Alternatively you may wish to complain to the Information Commissioner
(ICO). If that is the case the please find below details for the ICO.

The Office of the Information Commissioner

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

WILMSLOW

SK9 5AF

More information is available from the Information Commissioner's website

http://www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

G.E. Thomas

Disclosure Manager

============================================================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible.

This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been taken to
ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses.

The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the
views of Merseyside Police.

All communications, including telephone calls and electronic messages to
and from Merseyside Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.
============================================================