LTI Camera Type Approval Corraboration

dennis fallon made this Freedom of Information request to Home Office

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Home Office,

The police have conflicting responsibilities of keeping the peace according to their oath and the revenue generating activities, such as selling speed awareness and driver awareness courses, which are co-ordinated by the private firm which is known as the Association of Chief Police Officers.

These private commercial activities of the police often bring them into disrepute with motorists because of the frequent examples of entrapment and the use of type approved equipment which is obviously producing faulty readings.

I have already proven the faulty activations relating to fixed Gatso Cameras at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpaFOiQQSro

I now require information regarding the mobile speed cameras known as LTI 20 20 which have also been shown in the media to give faulty readings, such as walls moving at over 40mph, despite allegedly hsving achieved Type Approval.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/speeding...

The ACPO employ David Perry Q.C,to pursuade Courts that such obviously faulty readings can be excused but the public are not so easily convinced and, as far as I can tell, the LTI 20 20 should produce some form of recorded evidence that can be reviewed for accuracy.

FOI Q1.Please confirm the dates when Type Approval was granted to the various models of LTI 20 20 speed cameras and which Home Office ministers signed the approval.

FOI Q2.For these cameras,please confirm if Type Approval requires recording by associated equipment, such as DVD recorders and, if so, please confirm the approved recording equipment for each model of camera, the date the approval was granted, and the name of the minister signing the Type Approval.

FOI Q3.If these cameras produce evidence recorded onto DVD are motorists who plead not guilty allowed to have a copy of the evidence for independent analysis of the possibility of faults?

FOI Q4.Are the LTI cameras allowed to be used without the recording of hard copy evidence and, if so, how is the CPS supposed to produce evidence for use in court?

FOI Q5.Is the use of LTI equipment authorised for use through a closed window or from a moving vehicle?

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

FOI Requests, Home Office

Thank you for contacting the FOI Requests mailbox.

Your message has been logged and will be dealt with shortly.

We aim to provide a response to all FOI requests within 20 working days.

If your message is with regard to an existing FOI case or is a general
query please ensure you have left any file references and contact details.

 

Thank you.

 

 

show quoted sections

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

FOI Responses, Home Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Fallon

 

Please see the attached acknowledgement of your FOI request. 

 

Regards

 

 

C Kitchen

CAST FOI Team

 

 

show quoted sections

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear FOI Responses,

Thank you for your acknowledgement confirming that the Home Office should produce a response by 22nd April 2013.

I expect that some of the information may need to be gathered from Home Office departments other than CAST and part of the request may be considered as subjective, information not held,but I would appreciate a comprehensive response so that the response is complete and explains all the information as a matter of public interest.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox is unable to accept incoming messages and your email has been
automatically redirected to [1][Home Office request email] for a
response. Please use this email address for any further queries.

 

show quoted sections

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox does not accept incoming messages. Any FOI requests or
inquiries should be sent to [1][Home Office request email].

 

show quoted sections

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

FOI Responses, Home Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Fallon

 

Please see the attached response to your FOI request. 

 

Regards

 

 

C Kitchen

CAST FOI Team

 

 

show quoted sections

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear FOI Responses,

I do wish to Appeal the quality of your response dated 16 April 2013 which,unfortunately,is not satisfactory and requires clarifications.

To avoid the necessity of opening your pdf document I have repeated the essence of your reply below, in simple text, and the clarification request will follow.

Q1 answer.All LTI 20/20 type approval orders are in the public domain, and so this information is exempted by section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
As a service,however, we list below the names of the Ministers who signed the LTI 20/20 orders and the dates on which they were signed:
Michael Howard,LTI 20 20 SPEEDSCOPE,16/10/1993,Paul Boeteng,LTI 20 20 ULTRALYTE 100,7/7/1999,Vernon Coaker,LTI 20 20 ULTRALYTE 1000,6/12/2007,James Brokenshire,LTI 20 20 TRUSPEED DC LASER,13/12/2010,Nick Herbert,LTI 20 20 TRUCAM, 7/2/2012.

Q2 answer.The Home Office does not require the foregoing laser speed meters to be attached to recording devices.The LTI 20 20 TRUCAM has an integral video recorder.

Q3 answer.The routine provision of photographic or video evidence to alleged offenders is not compulsory.The evidence as to their speeding is that of a speed measurement, not a photograph or a video.The function of the camera within the enforcement device is to record that the vehicle whose registered keeper has been sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP)was in the place alleged on the date and at the time alleged.It may also show the person driving,but is not designed for that purpose,and in that context may only perhaps be useful to help the NIP recipient recall who was driving.The evidence relied on in court is the actual measurement taken by the speed enforcement device.There are cost and other implications (e.g. data protection) to the provision of photographic or vi
deo evidence and to provide them routinely may have limited benefits.
This is a matter for decision by individual chief officers of police

Q4 answer.As stated in the response to Q3, the speed measurement itself is the evidence.
These laser speedmeters are normally operated by police officers who will make a note of the speed measurement and other observations in a pocket notebook or on a Fixed Penalty Notice pad or both. The LTI 20.20 TruCAM, however, also records a video clip onto an SD card, and this SD card may be used in place of a pocket notebook.

Q5 answer.The Home Office does not explicitly prohibit use of laser devices through closed windows or from moving vehicles.
Officers, however, are expected to consider the guidance offered in the ACPO document „Guide for the operational use of speed and red-light offence detection technology‟(http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/unif...
v11.pdf) which advises against the use of laser speedmeters through glass or plastic screens, and only describes usage from a fixed point on the side of the road.
In keeping with the Freedom of Information Act, we assume that all information can be released to the public unless it is exempt. In line with normal practice we are therefore releasing the information which you requested via the Home Office website.
I hope that this information meets your requirements.
If you are dissatisfied with this response
you may request an independent internal review
of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to the address below, quoting reference 26894. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.

Information Access Team
Home Office Ground Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
As part of any inte
rnal review the Department's handling of your information request will be
reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you would have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.
Yours sincerely
Rob Coleman OBE BEng
Director
Centre for Applied Science and Technology
(CAST)

End of Copy of Official Response

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox does not accept incoming messages. Any FOI requests or
inquiries should be sent to [1][Home Office request email].

 

show quoted sections

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox is unable to accept incoming messages and your email has been
automatically redirected to [1][Home Office request email] for a
response. Please use this email address for any further queries.

 

show quoted sections

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

Dear FOI Responses,
FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY, TRANSCRIPT OF AN ABRIDGED ARTICLE FROM THE DAILY MAIL, EVIDENCED BASED INVESTIGATION OF LTI CAMERA FAULTS
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

"
This is the heart-stopping moment every motorist dreads. As you drive along the road, a police officer points a laser speed gun towards you.
Glancing at the dashboard, you breathe a sigh of relief: the speedometer reveals that your car is travelling below the 30mph limit. But a month later, a letter drops through your door. You face a fine for speeding and penalty points on your licence.
It is claimed that you were driving at 41mph - not 28mph. Can that high speed really be true? Staggeringly, the answer may be no.
Motorists accused of driving too fast on Britain's roads insist the real culprit is a laser speed gun officially approved by the Home Office and used by almost every police authority in the country. For the Mail has discovered that the LTI 20.20.gun is seriously flawed.
In our tests, it wrongly recorded a wall as travelling at 44mph, an empty road scored 33mph, a parked car was clocked as doing 22mph and a bicycle (in reality being ridden at 5mph) rocketed along at an impossible 66mph.
Imported from America, the LTI 20.20. is used in nearly 3,500 mobile speed units hidden in police vans or cars and mounted on motorbikes.
Speed traps - nearly half of which now use laser gun technology - reap more than £100 million each year in fines. This is shared between the police, the Highways Agency, the courts, the Home Office and local authorities.
Ironically, some of the huge sum is used to pay for even more police speed reinforcement teams relying on exactly the same laser speed gun at the centre of the Mail's investigation.
Rigorous tests
We subjected the speed gun to rigorous tests. Alarmingly, we discovered it was prone to wildly wide-of-the-mark readings, even when set up according to the police's own guidelines and the manufacturer's handbook.
In other tests, we found the equipment was measuring the speed of overtaking cars instead of the one being targeted.
Today, the Mail can expose the scandal of a speed enforcement industry in which the collection of fines is considered paramount - whatever the consequences for innocent drivers caught in police traps by faulty readings.
In the past nine years, an extraordinary one-in-five drivers has been fined for speeding, despite many protesting their innocence.
Lawyers we spoke to say motorists are now rebelling by refusing to pay fines and fighting their cases through the courts.
One voicing concern is Barry Culshaw, a Southampton solicitor currently acting for 15 drivers nationwide. "They complain of huge errors," he says. "Drivers say they were within the speed limit and yet the LTI 20.20. recorded them doing excessive speed."
Another disquieting discovery is that vital video film - often taken at a speed-trap site for use as secondary evidence - is often mysteriously withheld from motorists by the Crown Prosecution Service.
On at least ten occasions the Crown has suddenly dropped the case against a motorist when ordered by a judge to hand over the telling footage.
Michael Morgan, who runs a British website collating complaints against laser speed guns, said: "The authorities often wriggle rather than release the video, which would expose the laser gun to scrutiny in a court of law. No doubt they fear the enormous consequences, including a clamour for fine refunds and compensation over the loss of licences or even livelihoods."
Expert witnesses compromised
Alarmingly, the Mail can reveal, too, that the main expert witness used by the CPS to convict motorists in such cases - a former police officer named Frank Garratt - also makes his living as boss of the company importing the devices into Britain. Perhaps not surprisingly, Mr Garratt, a millionaire, told the Mail the LTI 20.20. works perfectly well.
One of the gun's toughest critics is Dr Michael Clark, Europe's leading expert on laser technology. He is a former company director of a British firm making laser detection equipment for traffic lights and car parks.
Dr Clark was clocked, apparently speeding, by a laser gun three years ago. He fought his case through the courts, proving he was travelling below the limit. He has acted as an expert witness on behalf of many motorists since.
"I was drawn into this controversy because I know about laser science. I do not rely on my court appearances or the speed enforcement industry to make a living," he told the Mail when we asked him to help - without payment - in our experiments.
Dr Clark says that the gun is defective because its wide beam can easily pick up the wrong vehicle. Furthermore, if the device is not held firmly on the target - and this is a difficult task - it can produce an erroneous speed result by "slippage".
Reflections from road signs and from other cars - even one stationary on the kerbside - can also make the laser gun misinterpret the truth".

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox does not accept incoming messages. Any FOI requests or
inquiries should be sent to [1][Home Office request email].

 

show quoted sections

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox is unable to accept incoming messages and your email has been
automatically redirected to [1][Home Office request email] for a
response. Please use this email address for any further queries.

 

show quoted sections

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

Dear Home Office,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's handling of my FOI request 'LTI Camera Type Approval Corraboration', FOI Request 26894.

For convenience, on 11th May 2013, I have restated the text of the reply generated by Rob Coleman,OBE BEng (Director of CAST),and also on the same day submitted a copy of Daily Mail text from an article several years previous where a TRUELY independant person has proved the LTI cameras to be unreliable.

Of course different people have different motives for expressing different, and opposite, points of view, but the fundamental distortion of the truth appears to be generated by ACPO for their selfish financial motives, and that is why I am trying to find out, in the public interest,why the Home Office have approved faulty equipment without really doing proper investigations.

The public cannot trust the police or the Home Office until this situation is explained and resolved, especially as the cash strapped,out of control,police are implementing a plan of deliberately reducing speed limits without good reason whilst increasingly operating speed enforcement covertly.
The reply from Mr Coleman appears to confirm that the police cannot be held to account as they merely have to say they have seen an offence, WITHOUT PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE,and the Courts will foolishly believe their words.
There is, UNFORTUNATELY,a lot of examples such as Hillsborough,Plebgate, etc,etc where the police produce false statements in order to gain advantage, so unsupported police evidence can no longer be trusted, and I am concerned that Mr Coleman has not gone out of his way to advise that recording equipment for these cameras is available and has been Type Approved, but has simply advised that the police don`t need to bother.
Rightly or wrongly I get the impression that there is some form of deception in progress.

SUBSTANCE OF APPEAL REFERENCE FOI 26894.
I have no dispute that the request was completed in time but I do dispute and request clarification of several points relating to the response.

Appeal Point 1,FOI Q1.
Please confirm the dates when Type Approval was granted to
the various models of LTI 20 20 speed cameras and which Home Office
ministers signed the approval.
Q1 answer."All LTI 20/20 type approval orders are in the public
domain"...but confirm signed:
Michael Howard,LTI 20 20 SPEEDSCOPE,16/10/1993,Paul Boeteng,LTI 20
20 ULTRALYTE 100,7/7/1999,Vernon Coaker,LTI 20 20 ULTRALYTE
1000,6/12/2007,James Brokenshire,LTI 20 20 TRUSPEED DC
LASER,13/12/2010,Nick Herbert,LTI 20 20 TRUCAM, 7/2/2012.

I would like to appeal that this answer is inaccurate and misleading in that he has not provided a link to any `official` site in the public domain, and a google search of `home office type approval`gives a link to Home Office 2007, which is clearly out of date.
I feel entitled to an up to date `official` link, not ancient history.
Also, I had to resort to visiting the teletraffic website to view type approval(TA) certificates and it appears that Mr Coleman has provided false information.
I asked when the various TAs were signed and I was informed that the first one was on 16/10/1993, LTI 20 20 Speedscope,signed by Michael Howard,but it appears that no only did Mr Howard fail to sign that TA,but the Approval was for a different camera the LTI 20 20 TS/M.
Mr Coleman did not inform me that the TA for the LTI 20 20 Speedscope was prepared for the Minister David Maclean to sign on 20/3/1996, and that the Minister also failed to sign it.
In legal terms it is very important to know if documents are actually signed and the precise equipment approved, so I would appreciate review of whether my observations are correct.

Appeal Point 2,FOI Q2.
I wish to complain about the unhelpful and misleading nature of the response that"The Home Office does not require the foregoing laser speed meters to be attached to recording devices"because it did not helpfully indicate that various TA recording equipment had specifially been approved for the purposes of providing reliable evidence(Lastec video and DVD), it just simply gave the impression that the police don`t need to provide reliable evidence when hearsay was adequat in the eyes of the foolish law.

Appeal Point 3,FOI Q3.
I wish to complain that the response to Q3 does not make logical sense and shows how deficient and untrustworthy the law has become.If the Home Office foolishly allows speed detecting equipment to be used without corresponding recording equipment how can there be any evidence of an offence?What prevents dishonest Officers simply making up speeds to write down, corresponding to vehicle number plates,when there is no recorded proof?The public know there are many dishonest Officers on a power trip seeking to meet targets, and that the Magistrates are very gullible,but please confirm if it is the Home Secretary who has actively agreed to these police tactics(authorised them) or if they have been presumed agreed by default.
QUOTE"The evidence relied upon in court is the actual measurement taken by the speed enforcement device". but this is clearly stupid if the device only measures(allegedly) but does not record.We know that the police have various reasons to be untrustworthy, that is why recording equipment has been approved, yet they can still get away without being required to use it?Does the Home Secretary,Teresa May, realise how crazy this situation is, and that police are provoking Criminal records to motorists they do not like, purely on hearsay?Did the Courts fall into disrepute by an active or a passive process of negligence?

Appeal Point 4,FOI Q4.
No actual appeal reference Q4, this simply highlights that the crazy Home Office authorises the police to simply write down an uncorroborated speed in a notebook which is then sufficient to ensure a criminal conviction against anyone.

Appeal Point 5,FOI Q5
Please confirm that Mr Coleman is telling me the truth, namely that ACPO does not recommend the use of laser devices through closed windows or from moving vehicles, but that the Home Office does not explicitly prohibit.It seems to me that the Home Office is grossly negligent in allowing the use of equipment in non reliable circumstances,as such sloppy behaviour is contrary to the public interest and unprofessional.

I would like to apologise for the use in this appeal of various adjectives such as foolish,crazy and sloppy to describe various behaviours but, as a person of integrity, I am distressed that malicious and unreliable convictions are being handed out to potentially innocent people, without any hard copy evidence being presented to the court, and that cameras which have not been legally approved by being signed off are being used without question for dubious purposes.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lt...

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

FOI Requests, Home Office

Thank you for contacting the FOI Requests mailbox.

Your message has been logged and will be dealt with shortly.

We aim to provide a response to all FOI requests within 20 working days.

If your message is with regard to an existing FOI case or is a general
query please ensure you have left any file references and contact details.

 

Thank you.

 

 

show quoted sections

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

FOI Requests, Home Office

1 Attachment

Mr Fallon,

 

Please see attached regarding your Internal Review request.

 

Stephen Adams

FOI TEAM

Information Services Centre

2 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DF

 

E - [1][Home Office request email]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

Dear FOI Requests,
Thank you for confirming that the review will be completed by L.Picton with an anticipated completion date of 11th June 2013.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

FOI Requests, Home Office

Thank you for contacting the FOI Requests mailbox.

Your message has been logged and will be dealt with shortly.

We aim to provide a response to all FOI requests within 20 working days.

If your message is with regard to an existing FOI case or is a general
query please ensure you have left any file references and contact details.

 

Thank you.

 

 

show quoted sections

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear FOI Requests,
QUOTE" Thank you for confirming that the review will be completed by L.Picton with an anticipated completion date of 11th June 2013".

I would appreciate completion or an explanation for the unacceptable delay.

I am very keen to know if the `system` allows the possibility of police officers simply providing unsupported hearsay to the courts in order to achieve prosecutions, bypassing the use of available recording equipment which would provide real evidence.

There are now extensive revelations in the media that the police make up `evidence`to achieve their objectives and I wish to know if the mobile speed camera`system`allows for this possibility to occur because,if so, it should not be allowed as it is contrary to transparent justice.

Thanking you in anticipation of your overdue response.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

FOI Requests, Home Office

Thank you for contacting the FOI Requests mailbox.

Your message has been logged and will be dealt with shortly.

We aim to provide a response to all FOI requests within 20 working days.

If your message is with regard to an existing FOI case or is a general
query please ensure you have left any file references and contact details.

 

Thank you.

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear FOI Requests,
I really need to progress this overdue request, automated replies are not satisfactory.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1...

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

FOI Requests, Home Office

Thank you for contacting the FOI Requests mailbox.

Your message has been logged and will be dealt with shortly.

We aim to provide a response to all FOI requests within 20 working days.

If your message is with regard to an existing FOI case or is a general
query please ensure you have left any file references and contact details.

 

Thank you.

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear FOI Requests,

I really need to progress this overdue request, automated replies are not satisfactory.

This is posted on a public website and seems to display dishonesty, if you say L.Picton was tasked to have completed by now, and/or inefficiency if you have failed to read your inbox and issue an apology and explanation for the delay.

It does not look good for you at all, and I would appreciate progress.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

FOI Requests, Home Office

Thank you for contacting the FOI Requests mailbox.

Your message has been logged and will be dealt with shortly.

We aim to provide a response to all FOI requests within 20 working days.

If your message is with regard to an existing FOI case or is a general
query please ensure you have left any file references and contact details.

 

Thank you.

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear FOI Requests,
I note the failure of both Stephen Adams(FOI team)and L.Picton(independent Appeal reviewer)to meet the promised date for completion, 11th June 2013, and failure to reply to subsequent emails requesting progress status.

[Extraneous material removed]

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

FOI Requests, Home Office

Thank you for contacting the FOI Requests mailbox.

Your message has been logged and will be dealt with shortly.

We aim to provide a response to all FOI requests within 20 working days.

If your message is with regard to an existing FOI case or is a general
query please ensure you have left any file references and contact details.

 

Thank you.

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

FOI Responses, Home Office

Dear Mr Fallon,

 

Thank you for your recent communication.

 

I confirm that your request for an internal review on your Freedom of
Information request 26894 is receiving immediate attention.  I apologise
for the delay in you receiving a full response.

 

You will receive a response in due course.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Information Access Team

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear FOI Responses,

You have ignored my repeated requests for an update and the completion is well overdue without explanation.

I do not like the concept of automated or anonomous replies as I am a great believer in accountability and transparency.

Please confirm, whilst I am waiting, WHO issued the unsigned response dated 21 June 2013.

[Extraneous material removed]

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox is unable to accept incoming messages and your email has been
automatically redirected to [1][Home Office request email] for a
response. Please use this email address for any further queries.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox does not accept incoming messages. Any FOI requests or
inquiries should be sent to [1][Home Office request email].

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

FOI Responses, Home Office

Dear Mr Fallon,

 

Thank your for your further e-mail of 21^st June.

 

While the Home Office aim to respond to internal reviews within 20 working
days, there is no statutory deadline to do so.

 

I confirm that your request for an internal review is receiving immediate
attention and you will receive a full response shortly.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Information Access Team

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear FOI Responses,
Whilst I am waiting for the delayed response, just for the record,please confirm how many people are employed providing responses to Home Office FOI requests and appeals, how many requests are currently being dealt with, and who is the person nominated as head of the Department?

Also please confirm the name of the person dealing with my appeal.

[Extraneous material removed]

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox does not accept incoming messages. Any FOI requests or
inquiries should be sent to [1][Home Office request email].

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox is unable to accept incoming messages and your email has been
automatically redirected to [1][Home Office request email] for a
response. Please use this email address for any further queries.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

Dear FOI Responses,

[Extraneous material removed]

Please confirm the reasons for the extremely poor level of service, if the staff are incompetent or if they are blaming the technology.

[Extraneous material removed]

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox does not accept incoming messages. Any FOI requests or
inquiries should be sent to [1][Home Office request email].

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

FOI Responses, Home Office

This mailbox is unable to accept incoming messages and your email has been
automatically redirected to [1][Home Office request email] for a
response. Please use this email address for any further queries.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Home Office request email]

Alistair P Sloan left an annotation ()

This request was brought to the attention of the WhatDoTheyKnow team. I have decided to leave it in public view at this time. However, I have modified the publically available versions of the messages sent to the Home Office to remove some extraneous material.

Alistair - WhatDoTheyKnow.com volunteer

dennis fallon left an annotation ()

Alistair Sloan has made improvements to the request because I was adding surplus comments in frustration at the Home Office not meeting their promised target dates and not providing an explanation or identification of who was dealing with the request.
The Home Office simply blanked me out by saying they did not have to meet a 20 day target, but Alistair HELPFULLY advised, and I happily agree, that 40 days would be an acceptable target.It is a shame that the Home Office could not have provided this guidance in the first place.

FOI Responses, Home Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Fallon,

 

Please see the attached internal review of your Freedom of Information
request 26894.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

L. Picton

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

FOI Responses, Home Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Fallon,

 

Please see the attached response to your Freedom of Information request
28000.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

L. Picton

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.