cost of the 1999 MPS Anti-Corruption Command investigation

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Sent: 11 October 2009 16:37
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009100002350
Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to inquire the cost of the 1999 MPS Anti-Corruption Command ********************************
****************************************************
****************************************************

Yours faithfully,

Philip Swift

Sent: 30 November 2009 10:46

Please advise the present position with regard to my FOIA application. This was made well in excess of 20 working days ago and I have yet to receive the information
Yours faithfully,

P Swift

Sent: 30 November 2009 13:10
Cc: Sarah.Strong[@]met.police.uk
Subject: RE: FOIA request - cost of 1987 investigation (1999)

Dear Mr. Swift,

My enquiries find that this particular matter remains outstanding. In view of your comments I have forwarded it to the MPS Freedom of Information review officer, Mrs S. Strong for an Internal Review to be conducted. (Should you disagree with that course of action please let me know)

Yours sincerely

Nigel Shankster
Higher Information Access Manager
Public Access Office
Metropolitan Police Service

Sent: 30 November 2009 13:44
Subject: RE: FOIA request - cost of 1987 investigation (1999)
Dear Sir,

This is unacceptable. Please advise:

1. Why I have not previously been sent a reference
2. The reference for the FOIA request
3. Why no one returned to me within the 20 day period to advise there would be a delay
4. What would have happened if I had not returned to you today
5. When I can expect to receive the data

Clearly you had received the request. By law, you should have answered promptly. You have not given a
legal reason why you need extra time. You are breaking the law.

I am requesting a review and wish to complain that the MPS has committed an offence under foia.

Please advise the reference for the complaint.

P Swift

From: Nigel.Shankster2[@]met.police.uk
Sent: 30 November 2009 13:52
Subject: RE: FOIA request - cost of 1987 investigation (1999)

Dear Mr Swift,

Your additional questions have been passed to Mrs Strong for the purpose of Internal Review and you will receive written confirmation.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Shankster

Sent: 30 November 2009 14:41

Dear Mr Swift,

Please allow me to clarify:

I can confirm that your requests for information regarding the costs of 1987 /1999 Investigation (******) etc, were received and logged by the MPS. They were also acknowledged on the 12 October as copied below and provided with the MPS reference 2009100002350:

Unfortunately this matter is still open as alluded to earlier and an internal review, following your email this morning, will be acknowledged and conducted by Mrs Strong. It is the Internal review that has not been logged as yet, apologies for any confusion on that issue.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Shankster

I simply do not understand why my request is ignored – why data has not been supplied and I have received no updates. My understanding is that the failure constitutes an offence.

It is the acknowledgement I have taken exception to, the platitude:

“In some circumstances the MPS 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.”

I have been fobbed off; you do not inform, you do not provide a revised time scale. I object to the police misleading me in this manner. How would you describe the above statement …. A falsehood, a misrepresentation, a lie …

It was not just likely in my case that the deadline would not be achieved, it was the case! Still no contact; I had to contact you. I suspect the request has been put to one side, to see if I followed it up or if the MPS could avoid answering.

I now understand the ‘live system’ aspect. Thank you. I question when the case came off the FOIA registration / attention system and was placed ‘not live’ ready to be allocated to Mrs Strong for a review. I do not expect the MPS to answer the question because I doubt there is any good reason, that any explanation would simply further incriminate. I shall however now consider carefully how I complete the trilogy; the cost of the latest investigation of the 1987 ******. I have intentionally avoided approaching the issue publically but it appears the reward for my reasonableness is to be treated with contempt. In the first instance I shall place the above issue with the ICO in the hope of getting to the truth which appears to be; the rules do not apply to me.

P Swift

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

P Swift left an annotation ()

this request was made directly to the MPS PAO on 11th October 2009. It was not the subject of a response in 20 days, nor was I advised there would be a delay. The matter has been dealt with in the usual tardy manner my FOIA requests are considered, hence displaying the issue here.

This site provides a simple means by which to monitor the progress and ensure others are aware of the difficulties encountered. It is evdinet the problem about data release is known within the MPS. To cite a senior MPS detective, Detective Inspector Doug Clarke, Douglas.Clarke2[@]met.police.uk “it's not always easy to get material from the DPS or from the Met sometimes”. As the problem appears to be known internally, why has it not been addressed?

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Swift,

I have forwarded your email on to case owner for progress and have
requested that he make contact with you. Please see the case owner's
contact details, should you want to contact him directly - Damion Baird
0207 230 5204, [email address].

Yours sincerely

A. Duncan

show quoted sections

P Swift left an annotation ()

Mr Duncan

there has been no contact from Mr Baird, nor do I expect there to be; you have avoided the issue to date and it is evident my requests are to be treated with contempt.

I do not want to contact the case owner. Why should I need or be expected to?
I do not want the case owner to contact me save to supply he data I have requested and am entitled to under FOIA.
What I desire is the information requested under FOIA ; an Act that you breach time and time again.
What I would like is the request handled promptly, professionally, in accordance with the FOIA.
If Damion Baird Damion.Baird[@]met.police.uk wishes to communicate with me he may do so via this site.
Thank you
P Swift

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Swift,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009100002350

I am sorry for the delay in responding to your request and any
inconvenience caused. I am currently conducting enquiries in relation to
your request. I will keep you updated upon progress.

I thank you for your patience in relation to this matter.

Yours sincerely

Damion Baird

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Baird,

I do not want an apology. I want you to supply the information I have requested. I want you to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. Is it too much to expect a police constabulary to comply with the law. As ignorance of the Act is highly unlikely to be an excuse, kindly advise what has given rise to the delay.
Please also explain when I am to receive the information requested and which should have been with me within 20 working days. Your comments about conducting enquiries and updating me are less than helpful – within what time frame can I expect these alleged actions to be undertaken.
My patience has expired.
Please consider this a formal complaint in relation to
1. your continued failure to supply data
2. Mr Duncan having failed to instruct you to contact me or in the alternative
3. Your failure to contact me
4. Your failure to progress the matter
I refer you to the annotation of Mr Duncan and that he apparently was to contact you 2 weeks ago!
Please explain what you mean by the statement that you are conducting enquiries in relation to the matter. These enquiries should have been undertaken some while ago. As the case handler, what enquiries do you have to undertake at this late stage
What action will the MPS take with regard to your flouting of the FOIA legislation
Please advise the reference for the formal complaint

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

please find the following from the ICO. I anticipate receiving the information on or before 19th January 2010

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

Case Reference Number FS50286906

Your Ref: 2009100002350

Dear Ms Lander / Mr Baird

Freedom of Information Act 2000
Complaint from Mr Philip Swift
Requests for information made on 11 October 2009

The Information Commissioner has received a complaint from Mr Swift stating that no response has been sent to two information requests submitted to your organisation on 11 October 2009, which have been acknowledged as received. We attach copies of these requests for your information.

Recent correspondence in relation to this request can be accessed at the following link:

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

Any public authority in receipt of such a request is under a duty to respond within 20 working days of receipt. As it is the case that you have acknowledged receipt of the request but not responded, we would ask that you now respond within 10 working days of receipt of this letter. We would also be grateful if you could provide a copy of your response to this office.

You should state whether or not the information is held in a recorded form. If it is held, you should either provide the information or issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act or regulation 14 of the Environmental Information Regulations as appropriate. You can find more information on refusal notices contained in the guidance issued by the Commissioner which is available at:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

Finally you should be aware that the Information Commissioner often receives requests for copies of the letters we send and receive when dealing with casework. Not only are we obliged to deal with these in accordance with the access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA), it is in the public interest that we are open, transparent and accountable for the work that we do.

However, whilst we want to disclose as much information as we reasonably can, there will be occasions where full disclosure would be wrong. It is also important that the disclosures we make do not undermine the confidence and trust in the Commissioner of those who correspond with him.

If you reply to this letter, I would be grateful if you would indicate whether any of the information you provide in connection with this matter is confidential, or for any other reason should not be disclosed to anyone who requests it. I should make clear that simply preferring that the information is withheld may not be enough to prevent disclosure. You should have a good reason why this information should not be disclosed to anyone else and explain this to us clearly and fully.

For further advice on how to deal with freedom of information requests, please visit our website at www.ico.gov.uk or call our helpline on 08456 306060, or 01625 545745 if you prefer to use a National Rate number.

If you need to contact us about this matter, please quote the case reference number from the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Dixon
FoI Case Officer
FoI Case Reception Unit
The Information Commissioner’s Office

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Swift

RE FOI COMPLAINT 2009120000292

(CONCERNING FOI REQUEST 2009100002350)

Thank you for your email dated 31 December 2009 relating to concerns over
how your FOI request is being dealt with.
As you have already asked for a review for this request this email will be
logged as part of that review and dealt with at the time you receive your
review response.

Yours sincerely

Julia Wharton
Public Access Office

show quoted sections

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I should not have to ask for a review - the information should have been supplied.

However, you appear to have ignored my previous comments with regard to the failure of staff to contact me and provide an update. It appears I was being fobbed off. I expect an explanation within the next 10 working days in the absence of which these aspects will be progressed as a formal complaint.

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Further to my response of today’s date (above), I remind you that you continue to be in breach of the FOIA in that:

My data was not supplied within 20 days
The review has not been conducted within the prescribed period

In responding to me, please comprehensively advise why there is a delay in respect of supplying the data.

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

From: Julia.Wharton(at)met.police.uk
Sent: 08 January 2010 10:23
To: P Swift
Subject: Complaint Acknowledgement

Dear Mr Swift

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009120000292

Further to our letter of 30 November 2009, I have unfortunately been unable to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:
• FOIA complaint pertaining to 2009100002350 .

I hope to complete your review no later than 29 January 2010. Should there be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as possible.

I apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please contact me on 020 7161 3604 or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely
Julia Wharton
FOIA Coordinator & Review Officer

P Swift left an annotation ()

This request should be considered in relation to the linked matters at:

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_t...

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_a...

P Swift left an annotation ()

From: Philip Swift
Sent: 21 January 2010 13:13
To: 'casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: RE: Response from the Information Commissioner's Office[Ref. FS50286906]

Dear Sirs,

I write to advise that I continue to await the information requested from the Metropolitan Police. I too sent your letter to the MPS on the 5th January using the service at www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_t... . The MPS acknowledged receipt of this the same day. The letter extends to the further and linked request that can be found at www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_t.... Your letter states:

“As it is the case that you have acknowledged receipt of the request but not responded, we would ask that you now respond within 10 working days of receipt of this letter. We would also be grateful if you could provide a copy of your response to this office.”

The 10 working days expired on 19th January. Despite this I have not received the data. Please can you confirm whether you are in possession of a response and if not, what further action can be taken to ensure prompt release.

The MPS have annotated a linked request on 13th January 2010, but not one I had asked you to consider as it is a subsequent FOIA request, advising:
“Dear Mr Swift,

With reference to this request we are currently working towards meeting the deadline of 19th January 2010 for this request. The units who are conducted the searches to assist with the request are aware of deadline and I hope to receive their results shortly.

I shall you informed of the progress with this case in the meantime.

Yours sincerely

Carol Conway
DPS-FOIA Team
Tel: 0207 2305192”
the above can be found at www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_a... and I confirm that the constabulary has NOT kept me informed of the progress. With regard to this application the MPS are also in breach of the FOIA and you will note I have made annotations to the record. Please accept this as a further complaint that the MPS are again in breach of the FOIA

Yours faithfully,

P Swift