Injury on duty Awards Evaluation Procedure
Dear Avon and Somerset Constabulary,
Regarding information disclosed on FOIA request referenced:
Private Our Reference 591/14
[1][FOI #215459 email]
Answered 02 /07/14
It was stated in answer to question 3:
"No documents are held. It was requested by the Head of Retained Financial Services that the initial evaluation begin with those ex officers who are in receipt of a Band 4 award. Following an evaluation of the NEW PROCEDURES, the intention is to then progress to ex officers in other band"
A 'procedure' is a replicable series of actions of an official way of doing something. I ask you to fully disclose the NEW PROCEDURES referred to in the above paragraph apropos to the stated evaluation.
Yours faithfully,
Iain Lackford
Corporate Information Management Department
Force Headquarters, PO Box 37, Valley Road,
Portishead, Bristol, BS20 8QJ
Facsimile 01275 814667
Private Our Reference 289/15
Mr Iain Lackford
Date 12^th February
[FOI #253399 email] 2015
Dear Mr Lackford
I write in connection with your request for information dated 11^th
February 2015 concerning injury on duty pensions. This request will be
dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Your request will now be considered and you will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act. In some
circumstances Avon and Somerset Constabulary may be unable to achieve this
deadline if consideration needs to be given to the public interest test.
If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at
the earliest opportunity.
Yours sincerely,
C Quartey
Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Information Management Department
Please note;
1. Requests and responses may be published on Avon and Somerset
Constabulary’s website (within 24 hours), some of which may contain a link
to additional information, which may provide you with further
clarification.
2. Whilst we may verbally discuss your request with you in order to
seek clarification, all other communication should be made in writing.
3. Avon and Somerset Constabulary provides you with the right to
request a re-examination of your case under its review procedure.
Corporate Information Management Department
Force Headquarters, PO Box 37, Valley Road,
Portishead, Bristol, BS20 8QJ
Facsimile 01275 814667
Email foirequests@avonandsomerset.police.uk
Private Our Reference 289/15 &
290/15
Iain Lackford Your reference
<[FOI #253399 email]> Date 02 March
2015
Dear Mr Lackford
I write in connection with your request for information concerning injury
on duty pensions.
Your requests for information have been considered and I am now informing
you that for the following reasons the Constabulary is not obliged to
supply the information you have requested and will therefore not be
providing the information requested on this occasion.
The Constabulary is obliged under Section 17(5) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, when refusing to provide the information requested
to provide you with written confirmation (referred to as a “Notice” under
the Act) to explain that the request(s) have been refused and which
exemptions have been applied and why. This letter constitutes that
“Notice” and will in due course explain the reasons for refusal on this
occasion.
The Constabulary will not be providing the information requested, as your
requests are deemed vexatious by virtue of Section 14(1). Section 14(1) of
the Freedom of Information Act states: Section 1(1) does not oblige a
public authority to comply with a request for information if the request
is vexatious. The term ‘vexatious’ is not defined in the Act, but guidance
from the Information Commissioner outlines this as requests which cause an
undue burden and can be viewed as either obsessive, harassing to the
public authority or its staff, designed to cause disruption or annoyance
or is lacking any serious purpose or value.
For your information, the Information Commissioner has published guidance
with examples, concerning vexatious requests and I would suggest the below
as a useful reference should you wish to read more on this subject
[1]www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/awareness_guidance_22_vexatious_and_repeated_requests_final.pdf
It is important in such matters to consider the wider picture. Deciding
whether a request is vexatious is a balancing exercise, taking into
account the context and history of the requests. The key question is
whether the request is likely to cause distress, or disruption, without
any proper or justified cause.
Avon and Somerset Constabulary as you know, has commenced reviewing injury
on duty pensions. These reviews have caused a great deal of concern
amongst those former officers currently receiving an injury on duty
pension, as this has the potential to affect their income. Initially 16
former officers are due to be reviewed and after that it will be a rolling
programme of reviews.
These reviews have generated a great deal of interest from numerous
individuals. Nearly all of these, like yours, have been generated via the
Whatdotheyknow website. The Constabulary has formed the opinion that the
flood of emails is a deliberate and orchestrated campaign against the
Force. Your request is one of 118 requests currently being processed by
the Constabulary. In total the Constabulary has received 189 such
requests, totalling 492 questions.
To date the Constabulary has been responding to requests of this nature.
However it is apparent each response is generating further questions, the
requests are all similar in nature, with some lacking any serious purpose
or value other than to overwhelm or harass the Constabulary. In addition
to this a small number of other questions have also been posed by the same
individuals concerning seemingly un-associated subjects such as the
Freedom of Information process. These are also considered to form part of
a campaign against the Force to cause disruption as the individuals
history only extends otherwise to IOD related questions in the recent
months.
We are experiencing significantly high volumes of requests at this time,
and even so these requests alone make up 49% of our current volume. This
has put a significant burden on the Constabulary. As you know there is a
legislative requirement to respond to requests within 20 working days. In
order to respond to these requests would adversely affect our ability to
meet the legal requirements for the other requests we are currently
dealing with.
The application of this exemption, under the terms of the Act is designed
to protect forces from requestors that abuse freedom of information in an
attempt to disrupt or impact on the delivery of public functions. It is
the Constabulary’s opinion that the volume and frequency of these requests
show a clear intention to deliberately disrupt the Constabulary, imposing
a significant burden. These requests have become obsessive in nature. Any
reasonable person would regard the volume and frequency of these requests
as harassing the authority, irrespective of whether that was personally
your intention.
There is a public interest in the public being assured that the force is
spending its funding wisely. The Constabulary and the Police Crime
Commissioner each have a Chief Financial Officer who has a statutory role
under section 151 of the local government act 1972 Act that requires them
to have a fiduciary duty to local taxpayers to ensure that monies are used
efficiently and effectively.
The application of this exemption will not disadvantage those going
through the review process as they are able to direct any questions they
may have to the appropriate individuals. In addition there is information
already in the public domain concerning these reviews.
The most common theme of the Injury on Duty pensions requests received by
the Force are associated with the members of staff and independent Doctor
involved in the review process, for example requesting all email, written,
correspondence, diary appointments, qualifications of those individuals,
and in most cases, once the information is provided, numerous questions
about those disclosures are received from the same group of individuals,
similar or identical in wording. This information serves no public
interest, and is viewed that its only purpose is to disrupt the
Constabulary adversely affecting our ability to deliver public functions.
Our figures show a steady increase of these requests, and as the reviews
continue, there does not appear to be an end point. Although the Avon and
Somerset Constabulary is a relatively large organisation the size of the
organisation is not a reliable indicator of capacity in relation to
Freedom of Information. The requests are about a single topic which is
dealt with by a relatively small part of the organisation ie Human
Resources and Occupational Health. It is not a practical resolution for
these areas to be resourced to assist with the requests. In addition
occupational health files are confidential and only accessible by staff
from the unit - staff not connected with the unit cannot be given access
to them due to patient confidentiality. In some cases these are the files
that need or be accesses to provide the FOI responses. Capacity is
therefore limited and cannot be expanded.
The ability of both HR and Occupational Health to perform their business
tasks has been undermined to the extent that service delivery has been
adversely affected.
As described above these requests have caused a disproportionate and
unjustified level of disruption, in that we will no longer be able to
respond to our other freedom of information requests within the
legislative timeframe. In addition the services provided by our Human
Resources department, Occupational Health, and Force Medical Advisor had
been inhibited as a result. This most certainly is not in the public
interest.
As we believe that the vexatious criteria are met in this case, we will
not be responding to this or any further similar requests. As per section
17(6) further refusal notices will not be issued.
Yours sincerely
C Quartey
Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Information Management Department
Please note:
1. Requests and responses may be published on Avon and Somerset
Constabulary’s website (within 24 hours), some of which may contain a link
to additional information, which may provide you with further
clarification.
2. Whilst we may verbally discuss your request with you in order to
seek clarification, all other communication should be made in writing.
3. Avon and Somerset Constabulary provides you with the right to
request a re-examination of your case under its review procedure (copy
attached).
Dear Avon and Somerset Constabulary,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Avon and Somerset Constabulary's handling of my FOI request 'Injury on duty Awards Evaluation Procedure'.
You have failed to explain why my request asking for procedural documents concerning a lawful duty to administer a public authority functions is vexatious.
I ask you to provide me with this information as public interest test is passed if there is a plausible suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the public authority, which therefore creates a public interest in disclosure. And even where this is not the case, there is a public interest in releasing information to provide a full picture.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that there will always be a general public interest in transparency. There may also be a public interest in transparency about the issue the
information relates to. The authority should consider any public interests that would be served by disclosing the information.
Whatdoyou.com is a mechanism only and you do not have the lawful authority to treat any request from a specific medium on a topic you have heavy traffic as vexatious. If you intend to draw a line with me then I will contact whatdotheknow and use their legal team to assist me in bringing this matter to the ICO. In the meantime, as is my right, I instigate an internal review to reconsider your position.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...
Yours faithfully,
Iain Lackford
Dear Mr Lackford
Please find attached a response to your application for an internal review
of your recent FOI application
Jeff Hines
Information Access Manager
Corporate Information Management Department
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
PO Box 37
Valley Road
Bristol
BS20 8QJ
<<Letter Mr Lackford 2.doc>>
Corporate Information Management Department
Force Headquarters, PO Box 37, Valley Road,
Portishead, Bristol, BS20 8QJ
Facsimile 01275 814667
Email [email address]
Private Our Reference 289/15
Iain Lackford Date 16 September
<[1][FOI #253399 email]> 2015
Dear Mr Lackford
I write in connection with your request for information concerning injury
on duty pensions.
Following contact with the ICO and having received their decision notice I
will now respond to this request.
The statement you refer to: “following an evaluation of the new procedures
the intention is to then progress to ex officers in other bands” does
mention ‘new procedures’ however at this time the new procedures are in
draft form and have not yet been agreed by interested parties. The purpose
of the evaluation is to help ensure that any approved procedures are fair,
legal and transparent having regard to Counsels advice, the views of NARPO
and the Police Federation and the experiences of both those being reviewed
and those involved in the review process.
The Constabulary fully intend to publish the agreed guidance as soon as
practicable on the force website. This is likely to be in the next few
months. It is not possible to be more exact as much depends on securing
the necessary approval from the interested parties. As such this
information is exempt under section 22 of the Act relating to information
intended for future publication.
Section 22 is a qualified and class based exemption which means that there
is no requirement to identify and evidence the harm that would be caused
by disclosure, however there is a requirement to consider the public
interest.
Public Interest test
Factors favouring disclosure
Disclosure would demonstrate the Constabulary is transparent and
accountable.
Factors favouring non disclosure
It is likely that the current draft guidance may undergo a number of
further iterations before being finally approved for publication and for
that reason releasing the draft guidance at this point would serve no
useful purpose and may cause unnecessary concern or anxiety.
Balance test
As articulated above the information is intended for future publication,
therefore the decision to disclose has already been determined. The
question here is to establish if it is in the public interest to disclose
a draft document that has not be agreed or scrutinised.
These reviews have generated a great deal of interest therefore
information that would demonstrate that the Constabulary is transparent is
of course recognised. However information contained within the draft
document, that has not yet be agreed by all concerned parties, and
therefore may be misleading, or inaccurate, this would not serve any
public interest. After weighing up the competing interests I believe the
importance of the factors favouring non-disclosure outweigh those
considerations favouring disclosure. In accordance with the Act, this
letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request.
Yours sincerely
C Quartey
Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Information Management Department
Please note:
1. Requests and responses may be published on Avon and Somerset
Constabulary’s website (within 24 hours), some of which may contain a link
to additional information, which may provide you with further
clarification.
2. Whilst we may verbally discuss your request with you in order to
seek clarification, all other communication should be made in writing.
3. Avon and Somerset Constabulary provides you with the right to
request a re-examination of your case under its review procedure (copy
attached).
Dear Avon and Somerset Constabulary,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Avon and Somerset Constabulary's handling of my FOI request 'Injury on duty Awards Evaluation Procedure'.
This is not just my request you are refusing under section 22, it is a decision notice from the ICO. My request was submitted on 11th February 2015. May I remind you that a section 22 exemption can only be applied if the decision to publish was made prior to receiving the original request . If a decision to publish is not made until after the 11th February the exemption cannot apply.
It is my understanding that you have until 21st September 2015 to comply with the second deadline of ICO decision notice.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...
Yours faithfully,
Iain Lackford
Dear Jeff Hines,
Further to the request for an internal review. The original request concerns the procedures referred to in the evaluation process of the first 16 former officers - in other words the internal procedures in affect between 29th May 2014 (when the reviews commenced) and 11th February 2015 (the date of the request). I am not interested, and did not ask for, procedures devised and amended after this date. Any future publication of procedures created or adapted after the date you originally received my request will not be compliant.
It has been 7 months since the request date so I believe this shows you have no evidence of your intention to publish any procedures concerning injury on duty reviews. Hence I feel your use of the exemption is incorrect.
Yours sincerely,
Iain Lackford
Dear Mr Lackford
Please find attached a response in relation to your request for an
internal review.
Yours sincerely
Jeff Hines
Information Access Manager
Corporate Information Management Department
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
PO Box 37
Valley Road
Bristol
BS20 8QJ
<<Letter Mr Lackford 4.doc>>
Dear Jeff Hines,
This is not a new request. It was the old request with prompting. Back in February I asked for the the evaluation procedures mentioned in my request dated the 2nd July [1][FOI #215459 email]
Answered 02 /07/14
It was stated in answer to question 3:
"No documents are held. It was requested by the Head of Retained
Financial Services that the initial evaluation begin with those ex
officers who are in receipt of a Band 4 award. Following an
evaluation of the NEW PROCEDURES, the intention is to then progress
to ex officers in other band"
THESE ARE THE PROCEDURES THEN NOT NOW. Delete the second request. It is this request that is asking for the information as specified. As you can see the 2nd July 2014 is between May 2014 and 11 February 2015
You are being delibertalty obtuse on this matter and I will take this matter up again with the ICO.
Yours sincerely,
Iain Lackford
Dear Avon and Somerset Constabulary,
I await the deadline 10th of November 2015 for your disclosure of the procedures referred to in my request 11th February 2015. This is in respect with the 'second' request you have taken upon yourself to open supposedly on my behalf. I still disagree with your interpretation of my originally request but will allow this deadline to run before taking the matter further.
Yours faithfully,
Iain Lackford
Corporate Information Management
PO Box 37, Valley Road, Portishead, Bristol BS20 8QJ
Telephone: 101 Facsimile: 01275 814667
Email: [email address]
Office Hours: 8am – 6pm
[1]Iain Lackford [FOI #253399 email]
Our Ref: 1440/15
Date: 19 October 2015
Dear Mr Lackford
I write in response to your request for information dated 21^st September
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Specifically you asked:
[2]The original request concerns the procedures referred to in the
evaluation process of the first 16 former officers - in other words the
internal procedures in affect between 29th May 2014 (when the reviews
commenced) and 11th February 2015 (the date of the request).
Your initial request received on the 11^th February references a response
to an earlier request. My response to that request mentioned “new
procedures” which you subsequently requested a copy of. For this reason
you were informed that those new procedures were intended for future
publication.
Now that you have clarified that you are seeking the initial guidance
documents I can inform you that these are published on the Whatdotheyknow
website.
As such the information is exempt by virtue of section 21 – information
accessible to you by other means.
I have included a link for ease of reference:
[3]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2....
Yours sincerely
Rebecca Pritchard
Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Information Management Department
Please note:
1. Requests and responses may be published on Avon and Somerset
Constabulary’s website (within 24 hours), some of which may contain a link
to additional information, which may provide you with further
clarification.
2. Whilst we may verbally discuss your request with you in order to
seek clarification, all other communication should be made in writing.
3. Avon and Somerset Constabulary provides you with the right to
request a re-examination of your case under its review procedure (copy
attached).
Dear #Freedom of Information Requests,
No, that is not what I asked for. You have provided a link to the guidance sent to those being reviewed. This is already published and not of any concern to me. That is information for the recipient external to your organisation - ie. the former officer themselves. It is clearly not the internal procedures you refer to in the foia answer you gave on the 2nd July.
Yours sincerely,
Iain Lackford
Mr Lackford
These are the procedures that we follow, they were provided to ex officers so they were aware of our process.
The procedures I referred to in my response to FOI 591/14 (2nd of July 2014) are the same procedures which have updated. The updated version is not yet finalised and intended for future publication as I advised you on 16th September.
Rebecca
Ref. FOI 1490/15
Dear Mr Lackford,
Please find attached the Police Pension Injury Award Review Process of November 2014. This is the version that was in use at the time of your request dated 11th February 2015.
Kind regards,
Rebecca Pritchard
Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Information Management Department
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now