Injury on duty pension reviews

The request was refused by Avon and Somerset Constabulary.

Dear Avon and Somerset Constabulary,

With regard to reviews carried out between 1.1.2000 and 11.7.2015 please can you tell me how many reviews led to hearings by the PMAB and how many went on to a Judicial review? Please include those reviews that were settled before reaching the PMAB or Judicial review court. Please advise me of the decisions made by the PMAB.

Yours faithfully,

Pauline Brown

#Freedom of Information Requests, Avon and Somerset Constabulary

1 Attachment

Corporate Information Management Department

Force Headquarters, PO Box 37, Valley Road,

Portishead, Bristol, BS20 8QJ

Facsimile 01275 814667

Email [email address]    

 

 

 

 

Pauline Brown Our Reference 1163/15
Your reference  
[FOI #279782 email] Date 05 August
2015

 

 

 

Dear Ms Brown

 

I write in connection with your request for information dated 12^th July
concerning Injury on Duty pension reviews.

 

Between 11^th July and 2^nd August you have submitted 14 separate requests
for information, totalling 38 questions. 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 over 200 requests received by the
Constabulary totalling in excess of 500 questions made by a limited number
of individuals.

 

The Constabulary was initially responding to requests of this nature. 
However it became apparent each response was generating further questions,
the requests are all similar in nature, including yours as you have
requested similar or exactly the same information, 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 (as you have request
ref 1096).  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.

 

In February of this year a decision was taken to refuse the majority of
IOD related requests as we felt the vexatious criteria was met. This is
not carte blanche, and each new request on the subject is assessed case by
case.

 

Looking at your 14 requests whilst each question in isolation would
probably have warranted a response the fact that you have made frequent
overlapping requests without giving the Force the opportunity to respond
to your first request before submitting a further request, and making
repeated requests supports the application of section 14.

 

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 on the whole 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.

 

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 these requests.

 

We are however happy to answer

 

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).

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections