Dear Vauxhall Conservative Association Organising Secretary,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010090004446
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 25/09/2010. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* "Can you let me have the date, time and venue for the next two Safer
Neighbourhood Panel Meetings for the following Wards in Lambeth?

1. Bishops
2. Princes
3. Oval
4. Ferndale
5. Clapham Town
6. Clapham Common
7. Thurlow Park

* Can you also let me have the minutes of the last two meetings of these
panels? "

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). 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 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.

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.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your
right of complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
write or contact Katie London on telephone number 02071613907 quoting
the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Katie London
Policy and Support Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think
the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your
request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is
to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your
decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues
and assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision
of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS
to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days
from the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied
with the decision you may make application to the Information
Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has
been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk. Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Dear Vauxhall Conservative Association Organising Secretary

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010090004446

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 25/09/2010. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Can you let me have the date, time and venue for the next two Safer
Neighbourhood Panel Meetings for the following Wards in Lambeth?
Bishops Princes Oval Ferndale Clapham Town Clapham Common Thurlow Park
Can you also let me have the minutes of the last two meetings of these
panels?

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering
whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified
exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest
before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application
of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(b) provides that we can
extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as
respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or
deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a
provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the
applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section
66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as
to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the
application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an
estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision
will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are
currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the
information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond
within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemption:

Section 31 - Law Enforcement

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 16 November
2010.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 020 77213610 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Bibi Karim
Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The MPS has a
strict staff conduct policy. Any email that causes you concern should be
reported via the Contacts section on the official MPS Website at
[1]www.met.police.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.met.police.uk/

Dear Vauxhall Conservative Association Organising Secretary

Thank you for your recent enquiry.

I apologise if my letter was not clear enough. We are considering the
following exemption which may be applied to the requested minutes of the
meetings. If the exemption applies, this will be clearly stated on the
minutes.

Section 31 - Law Enforcement
(1)Information which is not exempt by virtue of section 30
(Investigations & proceedings) is exempt information if it's disclosure
under the act would, or would likely, to prejudice-
(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension of offenders.

We look forward to providing you with a response to your Freedom Of
Information Act request by 16 November 2010.

Regards
Bibi

show quoted sections

Dear Vauxhall Conservative Association Organising Secretary,

Yes, as per your orignial request, this will also be included by 16
November 2010. In the meantime, you may wish to visit the MPS Safer
neighbourhood website.

http://www.met.police.uk/teams/lambeth/i...

Regards
Bibi

show quoted sections

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010110000219

I write to you in respect of your letter of complaint dated 1 November
2010 concerning:

Original FOI case number: 2010110000219.

Request for information dated 25 September 2010

* Can you let me have the date, time and venue for the next two Safer
Neighbourhood Panel Meetings for the following Wards in Lambeth?
* Bishops
* Princes
* Oval
* Ferndale
* Clapham Town
* Clapham Common
* Thurlow Park
*
* Can you also let me have the minutes of the last two meetings of these
panels?

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided that correct procedure was followed in regards to the handling of
your request for information.

REASON FOR DECISION

Your original request for information was received by the MPS on 25
September 2010. As the MPS is statutory required to respond to your
request under the Act within 20 working days, I calculate the deadline for
your request should have been 25 October 2010.

Public Authorities are permitted to legally extend the deadline by another
20 working days when considering the use of qualified exemptions, to the
information requested. Where the initial 20 working days is going to be
exceeded, public authorities must still serve a 'refusal notice' under
Section 17 of the Act within 20 days of a request. This notice must be
sent to the applicant even when it is relying on a qualified exemption and
has not yet completed the public interest test. The notice must state the
exemption being considered and include an estimate of the time in which
this decision will be made.

The MPS sent this legal 'refusal notice' to you on 19 October 2010, when
extending the deadline. This letter was sent to you within the first 20
working days for the date of your request. I therefore find the MPS has
not breached procure in regards to the handling of your pending FOIA
request.

Should you be dissatisfied with the final response the MPS send you in due
course in regards to this request, I will be able to handle your case as a
formal Internal Review.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
the MPS.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Strong
Policy and Review Officer

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The MPS has a
strict staff conduct policy. Any email that causes you concern should be
reported via the Contacts section on the official MPS Website at
[1]www.met.police.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.met.police.uk/

Dear Conservative Association Organising Secretary,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010090004446

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 25/09/2010. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Can you let me have the date, time and venue for the next two Safer
Neighbourhood Panel Meetings for the following Wards in Lambeth?

* Bishops
* Princes
* Oval
* Ferndale
* Clapham Town
* Clapham Common
* Thurlow Park

* Can you also let me have the minutes of the last two meetings of these
panels?

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS
to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at Lambeth Borough Police and the Metropolitan Police website.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located records relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to:

* Provide you with the relevant link to the information regarding the
dates, times and venues for the next two Safer Neighbourhood Panel
Meetings for the requested Wards.

* Partially disclose the last two minutes of the meetings of the panels
for the same wards subject to the deletion of information pursuant to
the provisions of section 40(2) and section 31(1) (a) and (b) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000

This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). Please see the legal annex for the
sections of the Act that are referred to in this letter.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before I explain the reasons for my decision I would like to inform you
that a Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction.
Both the request itself, and any information disclosed, are considered
suitable for open publication.

This is because, under Freedom of Information, any information disclosed
is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world, not
just to one individual.

In accordance with guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office
(ICO) the MPS have recently created a "disclosure log" which shows both
the response and any information disclosed under the Act. The disclosure
log is available at the following link:
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/disclosure/...

The fact that any FOIA disclosure is made publicly available (on our
website and elsewhere) is taken into account when the potential harm
and/or public interest is considered.

Question 1

The information requested is already accessible by other means as it is
published by the MPS at the following link:
http://www.met.police.uk/teams/lambeth/i... you need to select the
relevant ward in order to see the next meeting dates.

Whenever the MPS refers an applicant to information that is already
published or accessible by other means we do so in accordance with Section
21 of the Act. The link above provides you with the requested information
(and more) however, the use of Section 21 is technically a refusal as we
are providing you with details of where to obtain the information not
providing the information itself.

Question 2

The requested minutes contain information that is not suitable for public
disclosure. This information includes personal data - such as names,
addresses and other identifiers - as well as information which, if
disclosed would prejudice our ability to enforce the law. Any such data
may be exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 40(2) Personal Data,
and Section 31(1)(a)&(b) Law Enforcement.

Personal Data - Section 40(2)

This exemption is class-based and absolute therefore I am not required to
demonstrate the prejudice that would or would be likely to be caused from
disclosure nor am I required to consider the level of public interest.
However I will explain why this exemption has been applied.

Information that would identify or could assist to the identification of
individuals is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 40(2) of the
Act. In this instance providing the names of non police individuals
attending the meetings or discussed at the meetings would allow for their
identification. Details of specific incidents, victims, suspects,
witnesses and/or informants would also assist in the identification of
third parties.

Furthermore, some of this data relates to criminal investigations and is
therefore considered sensitive personal data as defined by Section 2(g) &
(h) of the Data Protection Act. Sensitive personal data is afforded
further safeguards from disclosure.

In order for the exemption provided under Section 40(2) to be engaged,
disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first or
second condition as defined by subsections 3 and 4.

Having reviewed the requested data I have decided that disclosure of this
information would breach principle one of the Data Protection Act, fair
and lawful processing. To determine whether or not the disclosure would
be fair and lawful I have considered the conditions for processing
personal data which are defined by Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act.
There are two conditions that are relevant to this request. Condition 1
relates to the consent of the data subject and condition 6 relates to
legitimate interests. I do not believe that the data subjects (in this
instance any individual attending the meeting or described within the
minutes) would agree to public disclosure of their personal information.
My conclusion therefore is that disclosure would not be fair or lawful.

I have applied the exemption provided under Section 40(2) of the Freedom
of Information Act to this information as the first condition, defined in
subsection 3(a)(i) of Section 40 has been satisfied. A link to the Data
Protection Act is available in the legal annex.

Law Enforcement - Section 31(1)(a)&(b)

This exemption is both prejudice based and qualified therefore I am
required to provide you with a prejudice test outlining the harm I have
identified and consider the balance of Public Interest.

Prejudice Test

In considering whether or not the information should be fully disclosed, I
have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.

The text redacted under Section 31(1)(a)&(b) contains information which,
if released, would be likely to prejudice the ability of the MPS to
prevent/detect crime or to apprehend/prosecute offenders.

To provide information that could be used to identify areas of potential
criminal activity may cause prejudice the individual victims of these
crimes, the general community and to the MPS itself.

For example if we were to publicly disclose information which highlights
an area susceptible to criminal damage (such as graffiti) we would be
confirming which locations an offender would be less likely to be
apprehended. This would cause harm to the individual owner of the
property who would become a victim of crime.

An increase in criminal damage and other offences would have a negative
effect on the local community by increasing the fear of crime and if the
offender is not apprehended prejudice is caused to the relationships
between the community the police and our partners.

Ultimately, such a disclosure would cause prejudice to the MPS not only
due to the reasons specified above but also because it would cause us to
allocate resources to tackle the issue. Our resources are finite and
therefore any reallocation would detract from other aspects of our work.

This prejudice test has highlighted only a small part of the overall
prejudice that was identified while reviewing the minutes however many of
the issues identified would result in the same or similar harm if they
were to be disclosed.

For example there is obvious harm where the discussions center on known
locations for drug dealing and our plans to tackle these areas and
offenders.

Any release of information that would be likely to prejudice a police
services' ability to prevent and/or detect crime could only be viewed as
being harmful to members of the public.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Transparency is one of the core principles of the Freedom of Information
Act, as the Act has created the right to know how a public authority
functions and the decisions it takes. Full disclosure of the requested
documents would assist in meeting the public interest in transparency and
accountability.

Disclosure of accurate information regarding the work and progress of our
safer neighbourhood teams would contribute to greater public awareness and
allow for informed debate around the use of police resources, partnership
involvement and the relevance of each of the ward priorities.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

Full disclosure of the requested minutes would reveal operations and
initiatives that are planned within the wards. Disclosure of such
information could prove detrimental to the MPS by revealing areas in which
we have intelligence of criminal activity.

Specifically such a disclosure would prejudice our ability to apprehend an
offender. This prejudice would be caused because the disclosure would
allow individuals with criminal intent to take steps to avoid
apprehension. As a result it would be likely that further crimes are
committed putting the public at an enhanced risk of becoming a victim of
crime.

Prejudice could also be caused to our work in crime prevention as the full
disclosure would highlight areas which are of concern to the MPS, our
partners or other contributors at these meetings (including members of the
public). For example the minutes contain information that identifies
locations that are susceptible to crime due to poor lighting or limited
security.

More worrying still is the disclosure of information which - while not
necessarily identifying an individual - confirms that a vulnerable person
or family live in a particular building, estate or street. Disclosure of
such information may lead to offences, including but not limited to
antisocial behaviour, being committed against individuals misidentified
from these documents.

The issues I have highlighted here relate to the effectiveness of the MPS.
Any disclosure that would have a negative impact on our core functions
would clearly not be in the best interests of the public.

Balancing Test

On weighing up the competing interests, I find the strongest consideration
favouring disclosure is transparency. I find the strongest consideration
favouring non-disclosure is the impact on the effectiveness of the MPS.

Having balanced the considerations outlined above, I have decided that the
benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not
outweigh the prejudice that could be caused by the full disclosure. In
reaching this decision I have taken into account the fact that the
positive public interest identified can be met by the substantial
disclosure that has been approved and is attached.

Please find attached copies of the requested information.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 020 8721 3610 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Bibi Karim
Information Manager

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in
part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request
or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

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

Section 21(1) of the Act provides:

(1) Information which is reasonably accessible to the application
otherwise than under section 1 is exempt information

Section 31 (1) (a) & (b) - Law Enforcement

(1) Information which is not exempt by virtue of section 30
(Investigations & proceedings) is exempt information if it's disclosure
under the act would, or would likely, to prejudice-

(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension of offenders.

Section 40 (2) of the Act provides:

(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is
also exempt information if-

(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and
(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.

Link to the Data Protection Act:

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/disclosure/...

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service 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 MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections