Thank you for your email which has been received by the University Legal
Compliance Officer. 

The University undertakes to respond to Freedom of Information requests
within 20 working days and to Data Protection requests within 40 calendar
days. 

Thank you

Legal Compliance Team

Dear Mr Woodman,

Thank you for submitting a Freedom of Information request, asking for
information from the University of Warwick. After looking further into
your request the University has concluded that it will not be able to
provide the requested information within the cost limit under section
12(1) Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Cost Limit under Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

Public authorities are not obliged to work past the appropriate costs
limit under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This is
currently £450, which equates to 18 hours of staff time calculated at £25
an hour as set out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection
(Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. 

It is the University's view that compliance with your request will exceed
this limit because the scope of the request is very broad. The volume of
emails that would need to be located, retrieved and extracted to
provide the information covered by the request is significant
and manifestly unattainable within the costs limit. In relation to
questions 3 alone, the University estimates that it would take
over 212.5 hours to gather the information you have requested. The
University has quantified this estimation by
sampling the number of emails one of the individuals named on your request possesses that
contains one of the search terms or phrases, please find the
sample analysis below:

Sample costs limit analysis of question 3 of your request:

 1. 443 emails were found to contain one of the word/phrases provided in
question 3.
 2. The locating, retrieval and extraction process of 443 emails has been
estimated, on average as a minimum of 90 seconds per email which would
equate to 11.07500 hours (rounded to the nearest half hour: 11
hours). 
 3. It is necessary to read through each of the 443 emails to establish
whether each individual email, which contains one of the word/phrases,
is correspondence with one of the other individuals named in question
3 of your request, as per the parameters of your request. This has
been estimated, on average, as 10 seconds per email which would equate
to 1.23055556 hours (rounded to the nearest half hour: 1.5 hours).
 4. Therefore the total time spent locating, retrieving and extracting any
email correspondence that contained one word/phrase from one of the
named individuals was 12.5 hours.
 5. The University has multiplied the above process by 17, as per the
number of people named in part 3 of your request, which brings the
total number of hours needed to spend on locating, retrieving and
extracting email correspondence between all of the 17 named
individuals containing one of the phrases at 212.5 hours which is over
11 times the amount of hours public authorities are obligated to spend
on answering a Freedom of Information request.

The above time analysis only includes the information-retrieval process,
in accordance with the regulations. Please note that the above analysis is
only for question 3 of your request. 

Advice and Assistance provided under Section 16 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000:

Under section 16 of the FOI Act, the University is required, as a public authority, to provide advice and
assistance as far as is reasonable, and to individuals who have made a
request to it under the FOI Act. However, as your request is
very extensive and all four parts of your request involve the
location, retrieval and extraction of communications either between staff,
or staff and BP Archive/BP Plc, with the additional caveats of
containing particular words, it is difficult for the University to advise
on which parts of the request would be attainable under the costs limit.
As demonstrated by our sample analysis above, the search of one
individual’s correspondence for one word/phrase for only one of the
questions almost equates to the costs limit. Therefore it is advised for
you to submit a refined request. 

If you do submit a refined request, the University will treat it as a
substitute request to your original request below. In the absence of a
refined request or confirmation of withdrawn, the University will issue
you with a formal Section 12(1) refusal notice. 

Kind Regards

The Legal Compliance Team 

________________________________________
From: Connor Woodman <[FOI #308603 email]>
Sent: 30 December 2015 16:52
To: infocompliance, Resource
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Divestment and BP

     Dear University of Warwick Legal Compliance Team,

     I respectfully request the following information under the Freedom
     of Information Act 2000:

     BP:

     1) All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.)
     between members of staff of the BP Archive, located in the Modern
     Records Centre building, and staff members of the University.
     “Staff members of the University” in this case includes any and all
     members of Security Services, and the following staff members:
     Nigel Thrift, Ken Sloan, Mark Kennell, John Pitman, Mike Glover,
     Keith Bedell-Pearce, Jo Horsburgh, Peter Dunn, Richard Lambert,
     Stuart Croft, Roberta Wooldridge Smith, Lucy Taylor, Ian Rowley,
     James Brecken, and Kelly Parkes-Harrison, or any staff members who
     are mandated to deal with correspondence between Warwick University
     and the BP Archive. The part of this request pertains to the period
     between September 1, 2015 and the present day. Particular attention
     should be paid to the period Sept. 26 - Oct. 9, and during those
     days, the request should be broadened to include any members of the
     University staff which the Archive consulted with. Particular focus
     should be on (but not limited to) correspondence including any of
     the following phrases or words: "divest", "divestment",
     "disinvestment", "BP Off Campus", "Fossil Free", "Fossil Free
     Warwick", "Fossil free action group", "protest", "fossil fuels",
     "Guardian".

     2) All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.)
     between staff of BP plc and staff members of the University. "Staff
     members of the University" includes all those listed in section 1)
     (although "or any staff members who are mandated to deal with
     correspondence between Warwick University and the BP Archive"
     should be replaced with: "or any staff members who are mandated to
     deal with correspondence between Warwick University and BP plc").
     The part of this request pertains to the period between September
     1, 2015 and the present day. Particular attention should be paid to
     the period Sept. 26 - Oct. 9. Particular focus should be on
     correspondence including (but not limited to) the phrase or words:
     "divest", "divestment", "disinvestment", "BP Off Campus", "Fossil
     Free", "Fossil Free Warwick", "Fossil free action group",
     "protest", "Guardian". Particular focus should be on (but not
     limited to) any correspondence between members of Warwick Security
     Services and "BP Intelligence, Security and Crisis Management".

     Divestment:

     3) All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.)
     between any two of the following members of University staff: Nigel
     Thrift, Ken Sloan, Mark Kennell, Mike Glover, Jo Horsburgh, Peter
     Dunn, Richard Lambert, Stuart Croft, Roberta Wooldridge Smith, Lucy
     Taylor, Ian Rowley, James Brecken, Keith Bedell-Pearce, Rosie
     Drinkwater, Christina Hughes, Pam Thomas, and Kelly
     Parkes-Harrison, which includes the word or phrase: “divestment”,
     “divest”, “disinvestment”, “fossil free”. The date range for this
     part of the request is from April 1, 2015 to September 10, 2015,
     with a particular focus on June 1 to July 20.

     4) All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.)
     between any of the members of staff listed in section 3), and the
     following members of Warwick SU: Cat Turhan, Rob Ankcorn, Andrew
     Thompson, Isaac Leigh, Bebe Husakova, which includes any of the
     following words or phrases: “divestment”, “divest”,
     “disinvestment”, “fossil free”. The date range for this part of the
     request is from April 1, 2015 to September 10, 2015, with a
     particular focus on June 1 to July 20.

     I would appreciate any information on these matters you are able to
     provide. I understand that this information does not have to be in
     document form unless specifically requested, and that it is the
     department’s responsibility to provide me with the information I
     require. Please note that emails in the "deleted" folder are still
     covered under the Act.

     If you need any clarification, please don’t hesitate to contact me
     by responding to this email.

     I would like to receive the information electronically where
     possible. I will be able to pick up any hard documents from the
     Legal Team’s office on campus.

     If my request is denied in whole or in part, I request that you
     justify all deletions and rejections by reference to specific
     exemptions under the Act. I also expect you to release all
     non-exempt material. I reserve the right to appeal any decision you
     make.

     Please confirm in writing that you have received this request at
     the earliest opportunity. You are required under statute to respond
     within 20 working days. As such, I look forward to your response by
     Friday 29 Jan, 2016 at the latest.

     Yours faithfully,

     Connor Woodman

     -------------------------------------------------------------------

     Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
     [FOI #308603 email]

     Is [University of Warwick request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
     Information requests to University of Warwick? If so, please
     contact us using this form:
    
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

     Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
     published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
     https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

     For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read
     the latest advice from the ICO:
     https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

     If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your
     web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

     -------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Woodman,

Thank you for your email dated 30^th December 2015 requesting information
about the University of Warwick. Your request is being considered under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please find below your original
request and our response.

I respectfully request the following information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000:

BP:

1) All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.) between
members of staff of the BP Archive, located in the Modern Records Centre
building, and staff members of the University.    “Staff members of the
University” in this case includes any and all members of Security
Services, and the following staff members: Nigel Thrift, Ken Sloan, Mark
Kennell, John Pitman, Mike Glover, Keith Bedell-Pearce, Jo Horsburgh,
Peter Dunn, Richard Lambert, Stuart Croft, Roberta Wooldridge Smith, Lucy
Taylor, Ian Rowley, James Brecken, and Kelly Parkes-Harrison, or any staff
members who are mandated to deal with correspondence between Warwick
University and the BP Archive. The part of this request pertains to the
period between September 1, 2015 and the present day. Particular attention
should be paid to the period Sept. 26 - Oct. 9, and during those days, the
request should be broadened to include any members of the University staff
which the Archive consulted with. Particular focus should be on (but not
limited to) correspondence including any of the following phrases or
words: "divest", "divestment", "disinvestment", "BP Off Campus", "Fossil
Free", "Fossil Free Warwick", "Fossil free action group", "protest",
"fossil fuels", "Guardian".

2) All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.) between
staff of BP plc and staff members of the University. "Staff members of the
University" includes all those listed in section 1)     (although "or any
staff members who are mandated to deal with correspondence between Warwick
University and the BP Archive" should be replaced with: "or any staff
members who are mandated to     deal with correspondence between Warwick
University and BP plc"). The part of this request pertains to the period
between September 1, 2015 and the present day. Particular attention should
be paid to the period Sept. 26 - Oct. 9. Particular focus should be on
correspondence including (but not limited to) the phrase or
words:"divest", "divestment", "disinvestment", "BP Off Campus", "Fossil
Free", "Fossil Free Warwick", "Fossil free action group", "protest",
"Guardian". Particular focus should be on (but not limited to) any
correspondence between members of Warwick Security     Services and "BP
Intelligence, Security and Crisis Management".    

Divestment:  

3) All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.) between
any two of the following members of University staff: Nigel Thrift, Ken
Sloan, Mark Kennell, Mike Glover, Jo Horsburgh, Peter     Dunn, Richard
Lambert, Stuart Croft, Roberta Wooldridge Smith, Lucy Taylor, Ian Rowley,
James Brecken, Keith Bedell-Pearce, Rosie Drinkwater, Christina Hughes,
Pam Thomas, and Kelly Parkes-Harrison, which includes the word or phrase:
“divestment”, “divest”, “disinvestment”, “fossil free”. The date range for
this part of the request is from April 1, 2015 to September 10, 2015, with
a particular focus on June 1 to July 20.   

4) All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.) between
any of the members of staff listed in section 3), and the following
members of Warwick SU: Cat Turhan, Rob Ankcorn, Andrew    Thompson, Isaac
Leigh, Bebe Husakova, which includes any of the following words or
phrases: “divestment”, “divest”, “disinvestment”, “fossil free”. The date
range for this part of the request is from April 1, 2015 to September 10,
2015, with a particular focus on June 1 to July 20.

The University contacted you, email dated 18^th January 2016, advising
that from its preliminary assessment your request, in its current format,
would be likely to exceed the appropriate costs limit under section 12(1)
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and therefore advised you to submit
a refined request.

However, as the University has not received a refined request, the
exemption under Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act is engaged
which states that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a
request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of
complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. This is
currently £450, which equates to 18 hours of staff time calculated at £25
an hour as set out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection
(Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.   

If you are unhappy with the way in which your request has been handled by
the University of Warwick, you can request an internal review and in the
first instance you are advised to follow the procedure outlined here:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/l...

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint,
you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Phone: 0303 123 1113

Website: www.ico.gov.uk

There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Horsburgh

Jo Horsburgh  | Deputy Registrar
University House  |  University of Warwick  |  Coventry  |  CV4 8UW

Dear Mr Woodman,

Thank you for submitting an FOI request, asking for information from the
University of Warwick. In order to comply with your request, please could
you clarify the following:

In your request you have stated that "Staff members of the University"
includes any staff members who are mandated in particular to deal with
correspondence between Warwick University and BP plc (you should know or
be able to find this out). Having investigated further as to whether any
members of staff at the University of Warwick are 'mandated in particular
to deal with correspondence between Warwick University and BP plc' we have
concluded that no staff are mandated in particular to deal with
correspondence between Warwick University and BP plc . Therefore please
could you provide further clarifications as to which staff members you
wish to be covered by this statement? 

We look forward to hearing from you. The University will be unable to
proceed with your request until you have provided the requested
information. Please note that the 20 working day statutory time limit does
not begin until clarification has been received.

Kind regards,

Legal Compliance Team
________________________________________
From: Connor Woodman <[FOI #308603 email]>
Sent: 06 February 2016 17:09
To: infocompliance, Resource
Subject: Re: FOI Request - University of Warwick - F075.15-16

     Dear Ms. Horsburgh,

     I amend my request to the following:

     All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.)
     between staff of BP plc and staff members of the University. "Staff
     members of the University" includes any staff members who are
     mandated in particular to deal with correspondence between Warwick
     University and BP plc. (you should know or be able to find this
     out), as well as Mark Kennell, Jo Horsburgh, Stuart Croft, Nigel
     Thrift and Ken Sloan. The part of this request pertains to the
     period between September 1, 2015 and the present day. Particular
     attention should be paid to the period Sept. 26 - Oct. 9. The
     correspondence included is that which contains any of the following
     phrase or words: "divest", "divestment", "disinvestment", "BP Off
     Campus", "Fossil Free", "Fossil Free Warwick", "Fossil free action
     group", "protest", "Guardian". Particular focus should be on (but
     not limited to) any correspondence between the members of staff and
     and "BP Intelligence, Security and Crisis Management".

     Given that you have responded to a request of a broader nature than
     this in the recent future, I trust this shall be well within the
     cost restraints. I look forward to a prompt reply. Please confirm
     you have received this request.

     Yours sincerely,

     Connor Woodman

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Woodman,

Thank you for your emails dated 6^th February and 20^th February 2016
requesting information about the University of Warwick. Your request is
being considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please find
below your original request and our response.

I amend my request to the following:

All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.) between staff
of BP plc and staff members of the University. "Staff members of the
University" includes any staff members who are mandated in particular to
deal with correspondence between Warwick University and BP plc. (you
should know or be able to find this out), as well as Mark Kennell, Jo
Horsburgh, Stuart Croft, Nigel  Thrift and Ken Sloan. The part of this
request pertains to the period between September 1, 2015 and the present
day. Particular attention should be paid to the period Sept. 26 - Oct. 9.
The correspondence included is that which contains any of the following
phrase or words: "divest", "divestment", "disinvestment", "BP Off Campus",
"Fossil Free", "Fossil Free Warwick", "Fossil free action group",
"protest", "Guardian". Particular focus should be on (but not limited to)
any correspondence between the members of staff and and "BP Intelligence,
Security and Crisis Management".

Given that you have responded to a request of a broader nature than this
in the recent future, I trust this shall be well within the cost
restraints. I look forward to a prompt reply. Please confirm you have
received this request.

After seeking clarification regarding ‘any staff members who are mandated
in particular to deal with correspondence between Warwick University and
BP plc’, you confirmed the following:

You can drop that part of the request and focus on the named staff
members, then.

Please find in the attached PDF document, titled: FOI Request – F120.15-16
BP Correspondence, all correspondence between any of the University staff
listed in your request above and any staff of BP plc which includes the
word or phrase: "divest", "divestment", "disinvestment", "BP Off Campus",
"Fossil Free", "Fossil Free Warwick", "Fossil free action group",
"protest", "Guardian" between the period 1^st September 2015 to the
present day (6^th February 2016).

Please note that some information has been redacted from the attached
documents prior to their release to you as the University considers that
its disclosure would constitute the release of personal data as defined by
the Data Protection Act 1998 s 1(1) (i.e. information from which a living
individual can be identified). Therefore we are redacting this information
by virtue of the exemption set out at section 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act.

Please also note that some information has been redacted from the attached
documents prior to their release to you under Section 40(1) of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000, which states that ‘Any information to which a
request for information relates is exempt information if it constitutes
personal data of which the applicant is the data subject.’ The University
considers that providing some of the redacted information would constitute
personal data of which you, as the applicant, are the data subject and
therefore should be treated as a subject access request under the Data
Protection Act 1998.

It is important to note that disclosure under the Freedom of Information
Act is effectively disclosure to the public at large, not solely the
person who has made the request. There is no presumption in favour of
disclosure of personal data under the Freedom of Information Act and
therefore the redacted information is automatically excluded from
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Under section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act, the University is
required, as a public authority, to provide advice and assistance as far
as is reasonable, and to individuals who have made a request to it under
the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, if you wish to access the
redacted information which constitutes your personal data then please
provide two forms of identification at your earliest convenience, to
enable the University to process your subject access request in line with
Section 7(2)(b) and Section 7(3)(a) the Data Protection Act 1998. The
University will waive the £10 administration fee.

If you are unhappy with the way in which your request has been handled by
the University of Warwick, you can request an internal review and in the
first instance you are advised to follow the procedure outlined here:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/l...

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint,
you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Phone: 0303 123 1113

Website: www.ico.gov.uk

There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Horsburgh

Jo Horsburgh  | Deputy Registrar
University House  |  University of Warwick  |  Coventry  |  CV4 8UW