Dear Humberside Police,

Please disclose the following information (Q1 – Q8) regarding the complaint, appeal and appeal outcome in below links:

20 March 2018 outcome of appeal (against outcome of Local Resolution complaint)
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fil...

Complaint (CO 520/17) and associated papers
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fil...

Q1. What is the appeal's reference number?

Q2. Why was the complaint dealt with as though it was a complaint about Sergeant Blake when it was a complaint about Detective Chief Inspector Craig Scaife?

Q3. Why did the appeal outcome express that the grounds of appeal were satisfactorily addressed when the anomaly in Q2 above was not addressed?

Q4. Why did the appeal outcome express that the grounds of appeal were satisfactorily addressed when they raised issues about the improper exercise of police powers requiring referral to the IPCC (IOPC) in accordance with the IPCC operational advice note (Mandatory referral criteria update, April 2017) but was not addressed?

Q5. Why did the appeal outcome express that the grounds of appeal were satisfactorily addressed when they raised issues about Regulation 6 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 which states that the person appointed to deal with a complaint must provide the complainant an opportunity to comment on the complaint when this was not properly addressed?

Q6. What enquiries were made with the resolving officer to find out why it was that the telephone number he had for the complainant was incorrect and why an alternative means of contact such as email was not used to comply with the obligation referred to in Q5 above?

Q7. Why did the appeal outcome express that the grounds of appeal were satisfactorily addressed when they raised issues about the irrelevance of the Home office counting rules (HOCR) which the resolving officer relied on for determining the outcome of the Local Resolution when this was not addressed?

Q8. Why did the appeal outcome express that the grounds of appeal were satisfactorily addressed when they raised issues about statutory updates and that in this case it had overrun the limit by over 15 weeks and this was not addressed?

Yours faithfully,

Wynn Miller

Information Compliance, Humberside Police

Thank you for your request for information.  If you are requesting
information under the Freedom of Information Act or the Environmental
Information Regulations you will receive a response within the statutory
20 working days.

We aim to respond to any other enquiries within 20 working days. Further
information on requesting information can be found on this [1]link.

 

Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication.
To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet
Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the
addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be
unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy,
print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this
transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender
immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks
e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct
their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions
expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your
co-operation. Humberside Police

References

Visible links
1. http://www.humberside.police.uk/your-rig...

Livingston, Adele 9353, Humberside Police

Good morning,

Section 8(1)(b) of the FOIA requires that a request for information must include the real name of the requester. If the requester; fails to provide a name; can’t be identified from the name provided (for example because they have only used their first name or initials); or, is using an obvious pseudonym, then the request won’t meet the requirements of section 8(1)(b) and will technically be invalid.

For a request to be valid, the requester must provide enough of their real name to give anyone reading that request a reasonable indication of their identity. This means that if the staff processing the request cannot identify the requester from the name provided, that request will be invalid.

Whilst it is not routine that we would seek identification, we have determined that that on this occasion owing similarities to previous requests we require your identification to proceed with this request.

Should you need to discuss this further please contact Adele Livingston, Information Compliance Officer on the above details.

Kind regards

Adele Livingston
Information Compliance Officer

Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication. To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy, print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your co-operation. Humberside Police

Dear Livingston, Adele 9353,

Section 8(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act is not a valid exemption.

Yours sincerely,

Wynn Miller

S. Jones left an annotation ()

You're right Neil, exemptions are only relevant if the question is a valid FOIA request. Here you've not not made a valid request so the authority doesn't need to consider if any any exemptions apply.

Dear Livingston, Adele 9353,

The Commissioner considers a request from an applicant whom the public body suspects has submitted it under a pseudonym should be responded to, unless there is a valid reasons not to do so. This request is not for personal information and in view of this the Commissioner would expect the public body to respond to it.

Yours sincerely,

Wynn Miller

S. Jones left an annotation ()

I think in this case the Commission will support the decision not to respond to a pseudonym as she takes the same line when this person writes to her using a pseudonym, for example: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...

Her view of the enquirer can be seen in "Gilliatt v Information Commissioner" (Appeal No: EA/2017/0062): "He pursued personal grudges, made groundless accusations and used abusive language. He was intransigent and was unwilling to accept the legitimacy of any position but his own. He was causing a real burden with disproportionate and unjustified requests. The requests were an improper use of FOIA, they were vexatious."

There is a difference between the everyday enquiry and enquries from someone whose requests have been described by the Tribunal as "the paradigm of vexatiousness".

Wynn Miller left an annotation ()

Your above account overlooks the fact that the Tribunal Service only publishes the Judge's decision so the uninformed observer has only that to rely on to be informed.

Dangerously though, this means that the uninformed observer will become misinformed if the decision is not arrived at objectively and adequately supported.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/u...

"Paragraph 12 of the decision refers to a 'dubious argument' which was pursued by the Appellant, inappropriately and excessively but it is not explained what argument the Tribunal is referring to.

The same paragraph criticises the Appellant for reopening issues which had already been resolved through court proceedings but does not explain what issues had been resolved and by which court proceedings."

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org