Copies of completed FIRs

Ian Jackson made this Freedom of Information request to Transport for London

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Transport for London,

Thanks for your reply to my previous FOI request
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/li...

Can you please provide me with copies of all of the FIRs which have been completed ("issued", in your terminology), as reported in your list.

Also, if I may suggest: it is probably worthwhile you considering whether you or LUL ought to be publishing these on your website as a matter of routine. As it is, I will probably be making a renewed request in 6-12 months.

Anyway, thanks for your help.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

LU CSC FOI, Transport for London

Thanks for taking the time to contact the London Underground Customer
Service Centre, requesting information under the Freedom of Information
Act. I’m writing to let you know that we’ve received your enquiry.

We will deal with your request as soon as possible and in any case provide
you with a response within 20 working days. However, if we are unable to
answer your comments within this time, we will keep you updated about the
progress of your case until you receive a full response.

In the meantime, if you have any queries or would like to discuss your
request, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0845 3309880. We’re
open 7 days a week from 8am to 8pm.

Kind Regards

LU Customer Services

show quoted sections

Dear LU CSC FOI,

Please would you explain the delay in responding to my request, and let me know when I can have the information I asked for. Thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

Ganesh Sittampalam left an annotation ()

The ICO is currently monitoring TfL for poor performance in responding to requests: http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

LU CSC FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Jackson

Thank you for your email. I am sorry for the delay in responding to your request whilst I have finalise the response to you. I am currently collating the documents requested for you.

If you would like to discuss your request please contact me on 0845 3309880.

Kind Regards
Shirley

show quoted sections

Dear Shirly

Thanks for your message. Can you give me an estimate of when you think you'll have the documents I asked for ?

Also, I don't suppose anyone at TFL has given any thought to my suggestion that these documents ought to be published routinely on the TFL website ?

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

Dear Shirley,

Also, sorry that I spelled your name wrong in my last message!

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

LU CSC FOI, Transport for London

6 Attachments

Dear Mr Jackson

Thank you for your email dated 11 November received by London Underground
on the same day. You asked for information about Formal Investigation
Reports (FIR). I am sorry for the delay in responding to you.

Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of
Information Act and I can confirm that we do hold the information you
require. Please find attached six of the FIRs requested.

With regard to the copy of the FIR entitled ‘Earls Court, Triangle
Sidings breach of protection protocol’, this is disclosed in full except
for a very small amount of information on pages 17 and 18 which has been
redacted (blacked out). TfL is not obliged to supply the redacted
information on page 17 as it is subject to a statutory exemption pursuant
to Section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ‘Health and
Safety’.

TfL is applying this exemption because the information in question could
be used to endanger the health and safety of customers and staff.

The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the public
interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. It is
acknowledged that disclosure of the information in question would promote
transparency and greater awareness of the track area in question. However,
on balance it is considered that the public interest is better served by
minimising the risk to the health and safety of customers and staff.

On page 18 the names of the 3 technical operatives referred to in the
incident reporting form have been redacted.

We are also considering the remaining FIRs for disclosure and for a number
of them require more time to reach a decision on whether the public
interest favours the use of an exemption in the FOI Act to withhold some
or all of the information contained in the FIRs. The applicable exemption
is section 38 of the FOI Act, which relates to information which would
prejudice health and safety if disclosed. I will come back to you
separately on these and I am sorry for the delay this has caused.

If you would like to discuss your request please do not hesitate to
contact me on 0845 3309880.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would
like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

Yours sincerely

Shirley Xavier

Your right to appeal

If you are dissatisfied with the way TfL has handled your information
request, you can ask us to conduct an internal review of our decision. The
internal review will be conducted by someone who was not involved in the
processing of your original request, in accordance with the complaints
procedure published on our website at [1]www.tfl.gov.uk/foi

Requests for internal review should be addressed to:

Head of Information Access and Compliance
Floor 5, Windsor House
42-50 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0TL

E-mail: [TfL request email]

Complaints to the Information Commissioner

If, following the internal review, you remain dissatisfied with the way
TfL has handled your request, then you can take your complaint to:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

A complaint form is available on the Information Commissioner’s Office
website at
[2]www.ico.gov.uk

Copyright

Any copyright in the material provided with this response is owned by TfL
or one of its subsidiary companies unless otherwise stated. The disclosure
of information does not give the person or organisation who receives it an
automatic right to re-use it in a way that would otherwise infringe
copyright (for example, by making copies, publishing it, or issuing copies
to the public). Brief extracts of the material may be reproduced under the
fair dealing provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1998
(sections 29 and 30) for the purposes of research for non-commercial
purposes, private study, criticism, review and news reporting. In respect
of use for criticism, review and news reporting, any reproduction must be
accompanied by an acknowledgement that TfL or one of its subsidiary
companies is the copyright owner.

Re-use

If you would like to re-use the information supplied with this response
please contact TfL using the details provided in the attached letter.
Requests for re-use will be considered in accordance with the Re-use of
Public Sector Information Regulations 2005.

show quoted sections

Dear LU CSC FOI,

Thanks for the information you have provided.

Can you please give me as much information as you are able about the redacted part of the diagram on p17 of the Earls Court Triangle FIR ?

Also, I am afraid I am deeply dissatisfied with your long delays dealing with my request. I have complained to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

FOI, Transport for London

18 January 2011

Our ref: IRV-100-1011

Dear Mr Jackson

Your email to LU regarding your FOI request has been forwarded to TfL's Information Access & Compliance Team.

The time taken to respond to your request will be considered as part of an internal review. The review will be completed as soon as possible and we will inform you of the outcome by 07 February 2011.

In the meantime, the remaining reports are being considered for disclosure and a decision on their disclosure will be taken as soon as possible. I have also asked LU to respond to your query about the redacted part of the diagram on p17 of the Earls Court Triangle FIR

Yours sincerely

Matthew Towey | Information Governance Adviser
Information Access & Compliance Team | Corporate Governance | Transport for London
5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 3063/ auto 63063

show quoted sections

Dear Transport for London,

Thanks. I look forward to hearing the outcome of the review.

In the meantime please don't let this further delay the completion of the initial response to my request.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Jackson

LU CSC FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Jackson

Thank you for email. I am sorry for the delay in providing copies of the FIRs requested. I am working with the appropriate departments on the remaining FIRs and will keep you updated on my progress.

I have also forwarded your email to our Information Access & Compliance Team who will consider the delay as part of an internal review.

In terms of your request for further information about the redacted part of the diagram on page 17 of the Earls Court Triangle FIR, I am unable to provide any further information. As explained in my previous email, disclosure of this information would be likely to endanger the health and safety of customers and staff. If you wish for our decision on this matter to be reviewed please email [email address] and our Information Access & Compliance Team will consider the application of this exemption as part of the internal review.

In the meantime if you wish to discuss your request, please contact me on 0845 3309880.

Kind Regards

Shirley

Shirley Xavier
Knowledge Manager
LU Customer Services

show quoted sections

Dear LU CSC FOI,

Thanks for the update.

Yes, please, I would like the redaction on p17 reviewed as part of the Internal Review.

If as I suspect the blocked out section gives the location of an Interlocking Machine Room (IMR), the review should consider the facts that: 1. the locations of these machine rooms are not always blacked out in public information; 2. they are well-known amongst some sections of the public; 3. the knowledge of the location of the machine room would not appear to be very sensitive.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

FOI, Transport for London

27 January 2011

Our ref: IRV-100-1011

Dear Mr Jackson

The internal review of LU's handling of your FOI request has been
completed. The review was conducted by a review panel (`the Panel') in
accordance with TfL's internal review procedure.

The Panel considered the correspondence associated with your request and
accepted that TfL had breached section 10 of the FOI Act by failing to
provide you with a substantive response within 20 working days. In
examining the correspondence the Panel noted that there was an unnecessary
two week delay in allocating your request to the right department.
However, overall the Panel considers, there was a real effort on the part
of LU to co-ordinate a response and ensure that the FIRs were assessed for
disclosure as quickly as possible.

Unfortunately, LU's efforts were hindered by the unavailability of staff
due to leave, sickness, and the involvement of some of them in the inquest
into the bombings of 7 July 2005. The Panel agreed that in normal
circumstances other staff would be able to cover. However, in this case
this was not possible as there are limited numbers of staff with the
necessary knowledge, experience and expertise to provide a full and
balanced view on the security and health and safety implications of the
releasing the contents of the FIRs into the public domain.

Although the Panel determined that some of the delays were unavoidable
given the unusual circumstances, the Panel identified the following issues
in the handling of your request.

. There appears to have been no adequate explanation of why it
took two weeks to allocate your request to the appropriate department

. Only one holding email was sent to you and only after you had
chased a response. The Panel thought that LU Customer Services could have
done a better job of keeping you informed of the progress of your request,
particularly considering that the potential sensitivities of some of this
information meant that it was always likely that assessing the reports for
disclosure was always likely to take longer than dealing with a more
routine request for information,

. Given the potential difficulties of carrying out this
assessment, the Panel determined that LU should have considered whether it
would be appropriate to apply TfL's discretion under section 10 (3) to
extend the deadline for providing a response in order to enable to TfL to
consider the public interest arguments for applying section 38. The Panel
agreed that LU should have done this and informed you as soon as possible
and kept you informed of when you could expect a response.

. The Panel agreed that some business areas took too long to
respond to requests for their assistance. This resulted in one of the FIRs
being considered for disclosure far later than should have been the case.

In conclusion, the Panel agreed that in failing to respond to your request
within 20 working days TfL failed to comply with your request in
accordance with section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. On behalf of
TfL please accept my apologies for the time taken to deal with your
request. The remaining FIRs have been considered for disclosure and a
final response should be provided to you by the end of next week.

Having considered the delay in providing the FIRs, the Panel assessed your
request for further information about the redacted part of the diagram on
p17 of the Earls Court Triangle FIR. The Panel noted the points raised in
your email of 20 January 2011. However, the Panel agreed that, without
clear evidence that further information contained within the redacted
diagram is already in the public domain, it would have to consider the
application and public interest in the withholding of this information in
the light of information and guidance available. LU Operational Security
considers that disclosure of this information to the general public would
be likely to be of material use to individuals who might have hostile or
malicious intent in planning attacks on the Underground. This would
therefore be likely to endanger the health and safety of staff and
customers.

The panel acknowledged that there is a general public interest in
disclosure of information, and that this information might be of some help
in reassuring interested members of the public that LU is serious about
its responsibilities to investigate adverse incidents thoroughly and that
LU's systems are sufficiently robust. However, against this the panel
considered that there is a very strong public interest in taking all
appropriate steps to safeguard the health and safety of LU's staff and
customers. The Panel considered that the information already released
should be sufficient to answer the public interest arguments in favour of
disclosure and that therefore the Panel upheld the application of section
38 (1) to withhold this information.

I hope this information is of assistance. If you are dissatisfied with the
outcome of this internal review, you can refer the matter to the
independent authority responsible for enforcing the FOIA, at the following
address.

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

A complaint form is available on the ICO's website ([1]www.ico.gov.uk).

Yours sincerely

Matthew Towey | Information Governance Adviser

Information Access & Compliance Team | Corporate Governance | Transport
for London

5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 3063/ auto 63063

From: Ian Jackson [mailto:[FOI #51671 email]]

Sent: 10 January 2011 17:29

To: LU CSC FOI

Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Copies of completed FIRs

Dear LU CSC FOI,

Thanks for the information you have provided.

Can you please give me as much information as you are able about

the redacted part of the diagram on p17 of the Earls Court Triangle

FIR ?

Also, I am afraid I am deeply dissatisfied with your long delays

dealing with my request. I have complained to the Information

Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Dear Mr Towney,

Thanks for your reply. The review panel's response is reasonable so far as it goes. However there is one very important omission which means that the panel's response is in the circumstances entirely unsatisfactory.

I requested copies of all the FIRs. My previous request http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/li... revealed 17 FIRs. So far I have had (redacted or otherwise) copies of 6 FIRs. I am therefore still waiting for a substantive response regarding the other 11.

I am very disappointed that the panel do not seem to have appreciated this. My original request was well over two months ago and with the extended deadline suggested by the panel, I should definitely have had a substantive response by now, to the whole of my request.

If this is administratively difficult for you to deal with somehow I could submit separate requests via whatdotheyknow.com for each of the missing 11. But to be honest I don't see why that would help - more likely it would just generate a lot of extra admin effort all round - and it would give the misleading impression that I first requested them now, rather than on the 11th of November.

To be honest I'm hoping that the intervention of the Information Commissioner's Office, pursuant to the complaint I have lodged with them, will help.

However, if your processes allow you to bring this to the panel's attention and for them to reconsider their response, I would appreciate it.

There is also one other matter that the panel haven't considered. I don't know whether your panel has this within its remit, but:

Why does TFL not routinely publish these reports ? That would save everyone a lot of effort dealing with and tracking FOI requests and so on.

Thanks for your attention.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Jackson

Thank you for your email.

Your request was for all FIRs that have been issued. At the time of your request 13 had been issued and it is these reports that have been considered for disclosure. 6 have been provided and we will provide a response on the remaining 7 as soon as possible.

Please note that the reports that have not yet been issued have not been considered for disclosure. This means that you will not be provided with all 17 reports listed in the PDF sent to you.

In terms of routinely publishing these reports, it is not the Panel's decision to make but I will bring it to the attention of those involved in preparing the reports.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Towey | Information Governance Adviser
Information Access & Compliance Team | Corporate Governance | Transport for London
5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 3063/ auto 63063

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Towey,

Sorry, yes, you're right, there are four which have not yet been issued. So I'm waiting for 7, not 11.

Thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

Xavier Shirley,

4 Attachments

Dear Mr Jackson

Further to your request dated 11 November 2010, and my response of 10 January 2011. I can now update you on the remaining FIRs specified in your request. I have previously provided 6 FIRs and there are 7 remaining. This response confirms our position on 4 of these. I am finalising the response on the 3 remaining FIRs and these will be sent separately. I am sorry for the delay in responding to your request while we reviewed each of the FIRs requested.

Please find enclosed (in full) the Final Investigation Report (FIR) relating to the ‘Transmission Based Train Control’ (TBTC) Testing on the Jubilee Line’ dated 27/28 June 2009.

Also enclosed is the FIR entitled ‘Service Disruption on the Northern Line – 7th October 2008’ dated 16 February 2009 and the final investigation report (FIR) entitled ‘Failures of the Connect Communications System during August 2008’ dated 16 February 2009.

We are not obliged to supply some of the information contained in these two FIRs (which are held by LU) as it is subject to the following statutory exemption to the right of access to information:

• Section 38 Health and Safety

We are applying this exemption because the safety critical information contained (which has been redacted) could be used to endanger the health and safety of customers and staff.

The remaining FIR you have requested relates to an incident on 03 April 2008. We do hold this information but are not obliged to supply it as the FIR in question is subject (in its entirety) to the Section 38 Health and Safety statutory exemption to the right of access to information:

The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the public interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. We acknowledge that there is a public interest in disclosure, for instance to provide transparency about the process by which LU investigates incidents on the network, but we consider that the public interest is better served by non-disclosure in order to preserve the integrity of this safety critical information and avoid endangering the health and safety of customers and staff.

If you would like to discuss your request please contact me on 0845 330 9880.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

Yours sincerely

Shirley Xavier
Knowledge Manager

show quoted sections

Dear Xavier Shirley,

Thanks for your reply, and thanks for the information you have provided.

However, I would like to request an internal review of the following matters:
1. The redactions made to the Connect report (report dated 16.2.2009)
2. The redactions made to the Morden derailment report (dated 16.2.2009)
3. The non-disclosure of the Neasden Service Control Centre report (incident 3.12.08)

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

Ian Jackson left an annotation ()

Readers may be interested to know:
- Some discussion of these reports has occurred in the newsgroup uk.railway, under the heading "Tfl Formal Investigation Reports"
- The ICO are dealing with my complaint. More discussion of the ICO's handling of my complaint can be found in uk.legal.moderated, "ICO refuses to issue DN in case of failure to respond"

LU CSC FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Jackson

Further to my email dated 11 February please find attached a summary of
the incident which occurred on 03 April 2008 at a Jubilee Line Control
Centre. As stated in our previous letter the right of access to the FIR
relating to this incident is exempt in its entirety pursuant to the S.38
of the Freedom of Information Act `Health and Safety'. However I hope
you will find the attached summary useful.

I am currently finalising the response to the remaining FIRs you have
requested and I will respond shortly. In the meantime if you would like
to discuss this or any other part of your request please contact me on
0845 3309880.

Your sincerely

Shirley Xavier

Knowledge Manager
LU Customer Services

show quoted sections

Dear Shirley Xavier,

Thanks for that summary report for the report relating to the Jubilee Line Control Centre at Neasden. That is indeed useful. I'm still not sure why the full FIR needs to be withheld but I don't think I need to pursue that any more, so please consider withdrawn my request for a FOI Internal Review of that decision.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

FOI, Transport for London

18 February 2011

Dear Mr Jackson

Thank you for your email requesting an internal review. I am sorry for the delay in this acknowledgement.

You have requested a review of the following matters.

1. The redactions made to the Connect report (report dated
16.2.2009)
2. The redactions made to the Morden derailment report (dated
16.2.2009)
3. The non-disclosure of the Neasden Service Control Centre report
(incident 3.12.08)

You subsequently withdrew your request for a review of item 3.

I will arrange for a review to be undertaken as soon as possible and a response will be provided by 11 March.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Towey | Information Governance Adviser
Information Access & Compliance Team | Corporate Governance | Transport for London
5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 3063/ auto 63063

show quoted sections

Dear Matthew Towey,

Yes, that's right, thanks.

Perhaps you could also try to chase up the remaining missing FIRs. (3 of them, I think.) I understand the ICO have written to you to ask you to respond to me and I'm expecting them to issue a Decision Notice.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Jackson

The ICO has written to us and I have been chasing the people involved to ensure that the reports are sent as soon as possible. My understanding is that a response to the Aldgate and Tottenham Court Road FIRs should be sent early next week.

As for the FIR regarding signal failure on the Central Line, this wasn't issued until December 2010 but given that we had stated that it was issued in June we are considering it for disclosure. LU has identified some sections it wishes to exempt from disclosure and discussions on whether they can be withheld are ongoing but should be resolved early next week.

I am sorry for how long it has taken to respond to your request.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Towey | Information Governance Adviser
Information Access & Compliance Team | Corporate Governance | Transport for London
5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 3063/ auto 63063

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

25 February 2011

Our ref: IRV-115-1011

Dear Mr Jackson

The internal review of the redactions made to the Connect report and the
Morden derailment report has been completed. The review was conducted by
an internal review Panel (‘the Panel’) in accordance with TfL’s
internal review procedure.

The Panel considered the correspondence associated with the Connect report
and noted that the Connect system performs a safety critical function
across the LU network. The information redacted details the technical
makeup of the Connect system. LU Operational Security argued that the
disclosure of this information could be used to disrupt the Connect system
which would interfere with the safe and efficient movement of trains
across the network. The Panel agreed that the disclosure of this
information would be likely to endanger the health and safety of staff and
customers and agreed that this exemption was engaged.

The Panel then considered the application of section 38 to parts of the
Morden derailment report and noted the information redacted details the
locations of safety critical assets. LU Operational Security argued that
the release of this information would increase the risk of derailment,
disruption and other serious incidents. The Panel agreed that the
disclosure of this information would be likely to endanger the health and
safety of staff and customers and agreed that this exemption was engaged.

The application of section 38 is subject to an assessment as to whether
the public interest favours maintaining the exemption or disclosing the
information. The Panel accepted that there is a general public interest in
disclosing details of LU's operational activities but noted that the
weight of the public interest in disclosing the information is lessened by
the fact that the vast majority of both reports were disclosed in
recognition that it is in the public interest to disclose details of LU
Investigations into safety incidents. Moreover, the Panel agreed that the
public interest is better served by non-disclosure to preserve the
integrity of these safety critical facilities.

I hope this information is of assistance. If you are dissatisfied with the
outcome of this internal review, you can refer the matter to the
independent authority responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Information
Act at the following address.

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

A complaint form is available on the ICO’s website ([1]www.ico.gov.uk).

Yours sincerely

Matthew Towey | Information Governance Adviser

Information Access & Compliance Team | Corporate Governance | Transport
for London

5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 3063/ auto 63063

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Towey,

Thanks for your message, and thanks to the panel for their consideration. While I disagree with the panel's reasoning and conclusions, I don't intend to take that any further.

If I may make a comment: the explanations for the redactions made by the panel were much clearer and more informative than those in the initial refusal notice. I hope that in future TfL's refusal notices can be more along the lines of the panel's explanation. That will hopefully in many cases avoid the need for an applicant such as myself to request an internal review merely to try to figure out what it is that is being withheld and why.

I look forward to hearing further about the December 2010 FIR, and about the three other outstanding FIRs.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

Ian Jackson left an annotation ()

I have flagged this request as "awaiting internal review". However, actually, there are no internal reviews outstanding; instead, there is a complaint with the ICO.

LU CSC FOI, Transport for London

4 Attachments

Our ref: 1320503

Date: 24 March 2011

Dear Mr Jackson

Further to your request dated 11 November 2010 requesting information
under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. Following my replies
of 10 January and 11 February I can now provide the remaining 3 Formal
Investigation Reports (FIRs) requested. I am sorry for the delay whilst
we considered the disclosure of each FIR.

Please find attached two FIRs that we are disclosing in their entirety.
These are:

* The FIR into the Unauthorised Wrong Direction Move (UWDM) and
associated SPAD on the Bakerloo Line at Paddington Station
* The FIR into service disruption following a Circle line train coming
into contact with scaffolding at Aldgate Station

Also enclosed is a redacted FIR into the delayed release of customers from
stalled trains following a Central line signal failure in the Liverpool
Street Area.

We are not obliged to supply some of the information contained in this FIR
as it is subject to the following statutory exemption to the right of
access to information:

* Section 38 Health and Safety

We are applying this exemption because the safety critical information
contained (which has been redacted) could be used to endanger the health
and safety of customers and staff on the Underground network.

The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the public
interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. We
are aware there is a benefit in being transparent and open on how LU
services operate and details that allow customers to understand why
certain processes exist and the rationale behind the various decisions
made. However this is outweighed by the potential damage by individuals
who want to disrupt LU services and the public interest is better served
by the non-disclosure in order to preserve the integrity of this safety
critical information.

If you have any further questions or want to discuss your request please
contact me on 0845 330 9880.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would
like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

Yours sincerely

Shirley Xavier

show quoted sections

Ian Jackson left an annotation ()

More information about some of the text redacted in some of the above reports, as disclosed, can now be found here:

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

Ben Harris left an annotation ()

This request is the subject of the Information Commissioner's decision notice FS50368164:

"The Commissioner has carefully considered this case and finds that the public authority breached section 10(1). An appropriate response has now been provided and the Commissioner does not therefore require remedial steps to be taken in this case."
<http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...>