Memorandum of Understanding & National Guidance
Phil Swift made this Freedom of Information request to City of London Police
Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.
Dear City of London Police,
In 2018, work was being undertaken on an MoU for insurers; guidance across forces outlining what information can be shared, in which circumstances, under the correct GDPR gateways and recommend a time scale and charging framework.
This involved your Information Management Services, the creation of draft documentation for ABI/Lloyds consultation with their members, submission to constabularies, endorsement of the National Crime Operations Coordination Committee, undergo consultation/rework, presented to the NPCC for agreed guidelines and cascading to their teams.
I am seeking all information relating to the MoU from its current version to the present.
Yours faithfully,
P. Swift
Dear Phil Swift,
I am writing in response to your request for information, received 15th
February.
Yours sincerely,
Ivan Chardakov
Senior Information Access Officer
City of London Police
m 07825017472
e [1][email address]
w [2]www.cityoflondon.police.uk t [3]www.twitter.com/citypolice
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/
3. https://www.twitter.com/CityPolice
Dear City of London Police,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of City of London Police's handling of my FOI request 'Memorandum of Understanding & National Guidance'.
I am seeking to understand the process as some improvements/advances have been made that I believe will be of ultimate benefit to all.
I do not accept that the exemptions are appropriate
no date has been supplied for the intended publication. The current process is many years out of date, long overdue renewal and I was informed years ago this was in progress. The information will include the work since last due for overhaul/renewal.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
Yours faithfully,
Phil Swift
*** Thank you for your email. Please accept this message as acknowledgement that
we have received your email ***
COVID-19 UPDATE
UPDATE - Due to the recent government guidance the Information Access Team will
be working from home. Whilst we have access to emails and telephone calls we
appologise if the current situations leads to delays.
The City of London Police use a case management system for all disclosure
requests including Freedom of Information. Your case will be logged and an
acknowledgement email including reference number will be sent from this
system. (if you have applied for an FOI on line you will receive a
seperate URN but we will allocate you a new URN when we acknowledge your
request from our system, we will still keep record of you first URN).
Freedom of Information
If you email relates to Freedom of Information your request will be
considered in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000. You will receive a response within the statutory timescale of
20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the information not
being exempt or containing a reference to a third party. In some
circumstances we may be unable to achieve this deadline. If this is
likely you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the earliest
opportunity.
We normally provide information free of charge but there may be occasions
when it would be appropriate to charge a fee where our costs are
excessive. In such cases we will advise you prior to processing your
request.
In some cases it may be necessary to transfer your request either in full
or in part to another public authority in order to answer you request as
comprehensively as possible. Again, you will be informed if this is the
case.
Please see our previously released FOIs on our disclosure log;
[1]https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/foi-a...
Data Protection
If your email relates to advice or a request for information relating to
Family or Civil Court Proceedings, Third Party Data requests, Insurance
requests or advice that falls in line with the Act we will consider your
request under the Data Protection Act 2018. You will receive a response
within an estimated 30 days.
Insurance companies part of the Association of British Insurers need to
supply the request on the appropriate appendix form, client’s signature
consent and fee. Please see our website for further details;
[2]https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/about...
In some cases we may require payment or further information in order for
us to complete the request. In this case we will contact you and advise
before proceeding with the request.
Request for Personal Information (Subject Access)
If your request is for personal information under the Rights of Access of
the Data Protection Act 2018 then we will deal with your request in line
with the Act and you will receive your response within 30 working days.
Subject to any redactions of third party data or data that you are
otherwise not entitled to.
Please be aware that all requests for personal data must be made in
writing with as much detail as possible in order for us to be able to help
us comply with your request.
Requests must also be accompanied with proof of identification and
address.
You can find more information and request form on our website:
[3]https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/about...
PNC/DBS
If you require a check to be made against your conviction history (PNC
check) this check is carried out by National Police Chiefs'
Council Criminal Records Office (ACRO). This check may also be referred to
as Police Certificates, Certificates of Good Behaviour, PNC Disclosures or
PNC prints.
The City of London Police are unable to process this type of Subject
Access Request and such requests must be sent directly to ACRO.
[4]http://www.acro.police.uk/subject_access...
Employment
The City of London Police does not provide disclosures for employment
vetting services. If you require a disclosure for UK employment purposes,
please contact Disclosure Scotland on 08706 096 006. Disclosure Scotland
is a government approved agency that provides suitable reports for
employers showing any relevant convictions.
Request for Information Advice
All other requests or advice including internal matters will be
acknowledged and we aim to respond to your email within 3 working days.
The City of London Police gathers and holds personal information which it
uses for a policing purpose. This includes: Protecting life and property;
Preserving order; Preventing the commission of offences; Bringing
offenders to justice; Any duty or responsibility of the police arising
from common or statute law.
Please see our Privacy Notice -
[5]https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/about...
Please consider the environment before printing my email
References
Visible links
1. https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/foi-a...
2. https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/about...
3. https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/about...
4. http://www.acro.police.uk/subject_access...
5. https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/about...
6. http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/
Dear City of London Police,
Dear Sirs 20 working days have passed and I am without update, without IR. please advise by when I can expect this.
Yours faithfully,
Phil Swift
*** Thank you for your email. Please accept this message as acknowledgement that
we have received your email ***
COVID-19 UPDATE
UPDATE - Due to the recent government guidance the Information Access Team will
be working from home. Whilst we have access to emails and telephone calls we
appologise if the current situations leads to delays.
The City of London Police use a case management system for all disclosure
requests including Freedom of Information. Your case will be logged and an
acknowledgement email including reference number will be sent from this
system. (if you have applied for an FOI on line you will receive a
seperate URN but we will allocate you a new URN when we acknowledge your
request from our system, we will still keep record of you first URN).
Freedom of Information
If you email relates to Freedom of Information your request will be
considered in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000. You will receive a response within the statutory timescale of
20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the information not
being exempt or containing a reference to a third party. In some
circumstances we may be unable to achieve this deadline. If this is
likely you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the earliest
opportunity.
We normally provide information free of charge but there may be occasions
when it would be appropriate to charge a fee where our costs are
excessive. In such cases we will advise you prior to processing your
request.
In some cases it may be necessary to transfer your request either in full
or in part to another public authority in order to answer you request as
comprehensively as possible. Again, you will be informed if this is the
case.
Please see our previously released FOIs on our disclosure log;
[1]https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/foi-a...
Data Protection
If your email relates to advice or a request for information relating to
Family or Civil Court Proceedings, Third Party Data requests, Insurance
requests or advice that falls in line with the Act we will consider your
request under the Data Protection Act 2018. You will receive a response
within an estimated 30 days.
Insurance companies part of the Association of British Insurers need to
supply the request on the appropriate appendix form, client’s signature
consent and fee. Please see our website for further details;
[2]https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/about...
In some cases we may require payment or further information in order for
us to complete the request. In this case we will contact you and advise
before proceeding with the request.
Request for Personal Information (Subject Access)
If your request is for personal information under the Rights of Access of
the Data Protection Act 2018 then we will deal with your request in line
with the Act and you will receive your response within 30 working days.
Subject to any redactions of third party data or data that you are
otherwise not entitled to.
Please be aware that all requests for personal data must be made in
writing with as much detail as possible in order for us to be able to help
us comply with your request.
Requests must also be accompanied with proof of identification and
address.
You can find more information and request form on our website:
[3]https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/about...
PNC/DBS
If you require a check to be made against your conviction history (PNC
check) this check is carried out by National Police Chiefs'
Council Criminal Records Office (ACRO). This check may also be referred to
as Police Certificates, Certificates of Good Behaviour, PNC Disclosures or
PNC prints.
The City of London Police are unable to process this type of Subject
Access Request and such requests must be sent directly to ACRO.
[4]http://www.acro.police.uk/subject_access...
Employment
The City of London Police does not provide disclosures for employment
vetting services. If you require a disclosure for UK employment purposes,
please contact Disclosure Scotland on 08706 096 006. Disclosure Scotland
is a government approved agency that provides suitable reports for
employers showing any relevant convictions.
Request for Information Advice
All other requests or advice including internal matters will be
acknowledged and we aim to respond to your email within 3 working days.
The City of London Police gathers and holds personal information which it
uses for a policing purpose. This includes: Protecting life and property;
Preserving order; Preventing the commission of offences; Bringing
offenders to justice; Any duty or responsibility of the police arising
from common or statute law.
Please see our Privacy Notice -
[5]https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/about...
Please consider the environment before printing my email
References
Visible links
1. https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/foi-a...
2. https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/about...
3. https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/about...
4. http://www.acro.police.uk/subject_access...
5. https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/about...
Dear City of London Police,
you are in breach of the law.
please advise:
1. whether the review of the MoU is complete and can be released and
2. by when i can expect the IR to be completed
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
Yours faithfully,
Phil Swift
Dear Phil Swift,
I am writing in response to your request for information, received 16th
March.
Yours sincerely,
Phil Swift left an annotation ()
21/06/2021 CoL response:
Request for Information Internal Review Reference No: IR2021/00339
I write in connection with your request dated 16th March for an internal review in relation to your FoIA request (ref: FOI2021/00185). The request was as follows:
I am writing to request an internal review of City of London Police's handling of my FOI request 'Memorandum of Understanding & National Guidance'.
I am seeking to understand the process as some improvements/advances have been made that I believe will be of ultimate benefit to all.
I do not accept that the exemptions are appropriate
no date has been supplied for the intended publication. The current process is many years out of date, long overdue renewal and I was informed years ago this was in progress. The information will include the work since last due for overhaul/renewal.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
DECISION
The City of London Police Service (COLP) has completed its review and determined that I have reviewed the initial disclosure and have decided to uphold the decision made.
The use of section 22 is there to stop the unnecessary work to the public sector including the time and resources spent. As mentioned the decision to publish this was made before your request. Therefore this exemption applies. Under the act we do not need to provide a date of when we will publish.
I ask that you keep an eye on our publication scheme on our external website.
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 City of London Police website.
I hope that this information meets your requirements. I would like to assure you that we have provided you with all relevant information that the City of London Police holds.
The City of London Police is responsible for an extremely small part of London comprising of the financial square mile in the centre of the City. The resident population is also extremely small comprising of less than 9,000 individuals.
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request or the decision which has been reached, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests must be submitted within two months of the date of this response and should be addressed to:
Freedom of Information
Information Management Services
Bishopsgate Police Station
182 Bishopsgate
EC2M 4NP
E-mail: foi@city-of-london.pnn.police.uk
Please mark your complaint clearly and remember to quote the reference number in all correspondence. You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner (ICO) to investigate any aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning his investigation.
Thank you for your interest in the City of London Police.
Yours sincerely
Michela Holmes
Dear City of London Police,
Th request was:
'In 2018, work was being undertaken on an MoU for insurers; guidance across forces
outlining what information can be shared, in which circumstances, under the correct GDPR
gateways and recommend a time scale and charging framework.
This involved your Information Management Services, the creation of draft documentation
for ABI/Lloyds consultation with their members, submission to constabularies, endorsement
of the National Crime Operations Coordination Committee, undergo consultation/rework,
presented to the NPCC for agreed guidelines and cascading to their teams.
I am seeking all information relating to the MoU from its current version to the present.'
1. I do not accept that your exemption addresses the request, that you will necessarily publish all the information my request encompasses.
2. the request dates from 2018 i.e. you have had 3 years in which to publish the information yet have failed to do so. it appears reasonable to assume much has been put to one side, superseded, discarded and will not be included/disclosed/published. i am seeing this information.
3. the request is phrased as per information received at that time, in 2018. I expect to be provided the information circulated in 2018 which, given the time that has elapsed, is unlikely to see the light of day, be disclosed as part of the eventual publication - assuming there is any
4. please evidence when it was decided to publish ALL the information my request captures.
5. please explain why the 2018 work has yet to be published; what has occurred such that delays have arisen
6. Please confirm whether you are treating this as a new request or clarification of the original (above) if not considered concluded.
Yours faithfully,
Phil Swift
Dear Mr Swift,
I will add it as new case but a continuation as the first. I will allocate it to the Force Information Manager to deal with.
Dave Tustin (He/Him)
Senior Information Access Officer
Information Management Services I City of London Police
M 07512716505 P 0207 601 2287
E [email address]
w www.cityoflondon.police.uk t www.twitter.com/citypolice
This information has been classified as OFFICIAL and is accompanied by a handling code. If you are not authorised to read it, please delete and inform sender.
Dear City of London Police,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of City of London Police's handling of my FOI request 'Memorandum of Understanding & National Guidance'.
Your have not addressed the request
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
Yours faithfully,
Phil Swift
Dear Mr Swift,
Please accept my apologies for the delay in response to you. I am working on the request. We are severely lacking with staff resourcing at the moment but your case is a priority.
Regards.
Dave Tustin (He/Him)
Senior Information Access Officer
Information Management Services I City of London Police
M 07512716505 P 0207 601 2287
E [email address]
w www.cityoflondon.police.uk t www.twitter.com/citypolice
Diversity Ally - Advocating for Inclusion
Good afternoon Phil,
I have become aware that we have an FOI request submitted by you that is
months overdue for a response. I just wanted to let you know that I have
taken over this request and am making it a priority to get you the answers
you requested.
Kind regards
Nikola
Nikola Bendall 110210P
SENIOR INFORMATION ACCESS OFFICER
Information Access | Information Management Services
Intelligence and Information
[1]CoL-Police-PNG.png
City of London Police
P
M 07879 539344
E [2][email address]
Please consider the environment before printing my email
References
Visible links
2. mailto:[email address]
Dear City of London Police,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of City of London Police's handling of my FOI request 'Memorandum of Understanding & National Guidance'.
I have waited patiently, I believe an IR is well overdue
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
Yours faithfully,
Phil Swift
Dear Phil Swift,
I am writing in response to your request for information, received 23rd
March.
Yours sincerely,
Dear Phil Swift,
I am writing in response to your request for information, received 24th
June.
Yours sincerely,
Dear City of London Police,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of City of London Police's handling of my FOI request 'Memorandum of Understanding & National Guidance'.
I have sought information that has not been provided in the usual course of business. Despite an assurance from CoLP 09/2018, you are ‘…. developing guidance to provide a consistent approach to disclosure practices which ensures standards are in place to both provide and protect information when being considered for disclosure’, no such guidance has been supplied.
I have made a FOIA request and have not received information; no previous suggestion about future publication, no suggestion by returning to you on a subject you failed to address was causing angst. Indeed, your delay/failure responding has given rise to my need to return to you i.e. you are the author of any perceived troublesome approaches.
I have been advised that the MoU was a work in progress. I have received no information save for your latest that sets out a time line that is of some assistance but conveys substantial delay associated with producing the MoU. If I have understood the response correctly, the version (and information relating to this) dates from 07/2018 but, despite multiple considerations, approaching 4 years later, has yet to be finalised.
It is hardly surprising therefore that I have bene required to return to you on several occasions - what is not understood is why your responses have bene tardy and the s22 exemption was not cited with an indication of the date for 'public release'. s22 would have satisfied the request however, it appears you are withholding information captured and that will likely not be for public release, namely the various versions.
when you compare my request time line with your MoU timeline itis evident information was held that could have been released. Indeed, the previous responses do not convey the information that you held, the status and associated documentation.
You categorise my request as 'less clear cut' insofar as s14 is concerned.
Determining whether my request is disproportionate or unjustified is not something I could consider before hand and I refer you to your history of responses that have given rise to my necessarily having to return to you.
This is request is dated 24/06/2021 and should have resulted in a response within 20 working days. You are in breach of the Act, you have broken the law indeed, you have done so spectacularly. Yet despite this, I have remained patient, submitted no further request on the subject. My measured response is met with an inappropriate exemption.
I await your internal review which I trust will provide the assistance I have sought, an indication when the MoU will; be released and an explanation or the delays.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
Yours faithfully,
Phil Swift
Dear City of London Police,
When considering this matter, please be mindful of my attempts to address the issue and understand the 'developments' over the years both with regard to non ABI/LLoyds members and from a member/adjuster perspective:
1. Non-Mou Parties
There remains a difficulty obtaining information where insurers are neither an ABI nor Lloyds members. Whilst we engage the MoU process, rightly this is understandably deemed unfitting by some constabularies, insofar as the process is designed for members. however, the fundamentals of the procedure are mirrored in the DPA enabling sections and go beyond the 'consent' and 'suspion' .
This is understood by some within the police the National Freedom of Information Referral Officer, National Police FOI & DP Central Referral Unit, National Police Chiefs’ Council having written in 2017 (just before new DPA):
'I’d also advise that the absence of [insurarer] as a signatory would not necessarily be an issue – they are still a data controller and bound by the provisions of the act which the ISA* addresses. Provided the recipient is satisfied the request is lawful and meets the purpose and lawful basis made out by the ISA, they may make the decision to share. Sharing outside the terms of the ISA would need a separate determination to meet DPA’98.'
*Information Sharing Agreement
2. City of London Police (CoLP) stance 2018
I am concerned that the failure to develop the MoU, the more recent approach is far from that intended in 2002 and veering away from the intentions of the DPA. Indeed, part of my approach is to better understand the mentality of the review has been subject to a somewhat dismissive response previously and following which I am yet to be advised of updates - to include a desire to prevent those instructed by insurers to utilise the MoU:
When asked about a constabulry rejecting an insured's consent to dsclsure, CoLP responded:
'Forces are under no obligation to respond to requests of this nature, even if the organisation is an ABI member.'
when explaining to CoLP, from the insured’s perspective, they are apparently a victim of crime. They have reported the matter to the police who they could reasonably expect to assist them and of the need to update an insured, CoLP's response was:
'The communication you send your client is clearly an internal policy matter relevant to your organisation. The guidance currently* being drafted would not see policing release information to a broker, loss adjuster or other third party. In all cases future police disclosures of this nature would be made directly to the relevant ABI member and they would be guided to disseminate, with controls, to those third parties acting on their behalf.'
07/09/2018, guidance was being drafted. I have bene seeking this - where is it, why has it been withheld. It is apparent this almost 4-year old correspondence is not going to be published, at least into in its original format. I wish to be provided not simply what is (apparently) to be issued but the information leading to this.
Your director of information explained CoLP were developing guidance to provide a consistent approach to disclosure practices which ensures standards are in place to both provide and protect information when being considered for disclosure.
I am seeking this guidance.
I apprecaite the Police service must ensure that the information it processes is done so lawfully and securely and that a police service cannot assess every loss adjuster, broker, agent or third party acting on behalf of an insurer. However, much (if not all) of the assessment has occurred with regard to many adjusters who will make approaches. I am concerned the CoLP approach is onerous and will harm those who, more often than not, the disclosure will benefit; the victims of vehicle crime (my general spehere of operation)
The fundamental approach must surely be to release information, where able, ASAP. Recovery of vehicle rates is so low as to place a greater burden on insurers who, where the police have been unable to locate a vehicle, are perceived as the means by which to put the distress, inconvenience and financial hardship behind them. The insurer will bring 'closure'. That there appears to be such difficulty addressing a fundamental requirement of a claims process, establishing facts about a claim, suggests the approach is flawed, unnecessarily overcomplicated and without appropriate consideration to those who necessarily require information -insurers who wish to help victims.
Yours faithfully,
Phil Swift
Dear Phil Swift,
I am writing in response to your recent requests for information and an
Internal Review.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Flinter
Dear City of London Police,
Thank you for your response. By when you expect to publish the information?
You state you are upholding a s22 response. Your determination, 30/03/2022, was s14. Kindly confirm the s14 exemption has been withdrawn.
Yours faithfully,
Phil Swift
OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE PROTECTIVE MARKING ONLY
Dear Phil Swift,
Thank you for your follow up email. We do not have a planned date yet as we still have ongoing work to do on the document, as you know providing a date for future publication is not a requirement of Section 22.
Although there were grounds for a S14 I believe that a Section 22 is more appropriate so this has been upheld. I confirm that a S14 has been withdrawn on this occasion.
Kind Regards,
Claire
Dear FOI FOI,
1. The information I have sought may NOT be what is published at a later date. I will obviously receive/view the published item if and when it becomes available.
I have asked for:
‘ all information relating to the MoU from its current version to the present.’
I have not asked for the final version, that is not what I require.
To date, despite the MoU being in force since 2002 (I was involved with the production of this), no ‘Information relating to the pre-issuance has been provided.
the information that is planned for publication is NOT the same as the information I have requested
2. You have written 19/05/2022:
‘We do not have a planned date yet as we still have ongoing work to do on the document, as you know providing a date for future publication is not a requirement of Section 22.’
I have been provided no indication of a plan, date or trigger for the publication. I understand s22 guidance states that Section 22 may be applied if:
- ‘there is a publication deadline: publication could be at any date before then; or
- publication will take place once other actions have been completed; or
- publication will take place by reference to other related events; or
- there is a draft publication schedule that hasn’t been finalised.’
The ICO also says "it is good practice to provide the requester with an anticipated date of publication. If the authority subsequently decides not to publish the information, it should inform the requester and ask if they wish to submit the request again.
Yours sincerely,
Phil Swift
Dear FOI FOI,
The ICO also says "it is good practice to provide the requester with an anticipated date of publication. If the authority subsequently decides not to publish the information, it should inform the requester and ask if they wish to submit the request again.
I again ask 'what is the anticipated date of publication
please also advise who specifically is addressing this new version - or their department and provide a contact email - likely best to send this to me at pswift @ cmaclaims.co.uk
My interest stems from a desire to assist in the formulation of the MoU which appears to be an unnecessarily onerous process that is not only causing constabularies unnecessary work but adversely affecting the resolution of insurance claims - it appears to have escaped the police that, with regard to vehicles, when these are not found, the victim/insured will look to their insurer for 'closure'. It appears odd that the police would not engage with insurers to assist in the prompt resolution of matters, to reduce the inconvenience, financial hardship and distress to victims.
My interest is vehicle theft and given the increased incidence/value, https://www.cmaclaims.co.uk/insurers-app...
and the pressures upon constabularies, I believe a thorough re-think is required and wish to assist in this respect for the benefit of all.
Yours sincerely,
Phil Swift
Mr P Swift left an annotation ()
From: ICO Casework <icocasework@ico.org.uk>
Sent: 09 August 2022 18:44
To: Philip Swift <pswift@cmaclaims.co.uk>
Subject: ICO Case Reference: IC-176104-Y1W3
9 August 2022
Case Reference: IC-176104-Y1W3
Dear Philip Swift,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Your complaint to the City of London Police
WhatDoTheyKnow link: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
I write with regard to your complaint with City of London Police. On 23 June 2022, we accepted this complaint for further investigation based on the public authority’s refusal under section 22 (Information intended for future publication).
We have received an update from the public authority, who have informed us that the requested information has now been published. In addition, we have been informed that the public authority have contacted you to advise of the released information.
Please could you confirm that you have received the published information from the City of London Police? If you are satisfied that your request for information has been answered, please could you also confirm if you are content for the Commissioner to close this case, rather than proceed to investigation?
Yours sincerely,
Mr P Swift left an annotation ()
Sent: 10 August 2022 07:27
To: 'ICO Casework' icocasework @ ico.org.uk
Subject: RE: ICO Case Reference: IC-176104-Y1W3
Dear Mr Martin,
You advise the public authority:
A. have informed us that the requested information has now been published
B. have contacted you to advise of the released information.
I therefore ask to be provided by the ICO and CoLP:
1. a copy of the notification at ‘B’ above.
2. copies of your emails/notes of exchanges about notifying me
Regarding publication of the ‘request information’:
3. what was published
4. On what date was it published?
5. How was it published?
6. Where is it published?
7. To whom was it disseminated?
15/02/2021, My request was:
I am seeking all information relating to the MoU from its current version to the present.
14/06/2022, I wrote (WDTK):
1. The information I have sought may NOT be what is published at a later date. I will obviously receive/view the published item if and when it becomes available.
I have asked for:
‘ all information relating to the MoU from its current version to the present.’
I have not asked for the final version, that is not what I require.
8. Where is the information I have requested, published?
I am aware of ‘recent’ guidance that has bene issued by the NPCC. https://www.cmaclaims.co.uk/npcc-abi-nat... . This is not what I requested.
I ask to be provided the information I have requested.
Yours sincerely,
P. Swift
Cc CoLP via WDTK
Dear FOI,
I refer you to this thread, the recent additions. I understand you have informed the ICO:
A. the requested information has now been published
B. you have contacted me to advise of the released information.
I ask to be provided by the CoLP:
1. a copy of the notification at ‘B’ above.
2. copies of your emails/notes of exchanges about notifying me
Regarding the publication of the ‘request information’:
3. what was published
4. On what date was it published?
5. How was it published?
6. Where is it published?
7. To whom was it disseminated?
15/02/2021, My request was:
I am seeking all information relating to the MoU from its current version to the present.
14/06/2022, I wrote (WDTK):
'The information I have sought may NOT be what is published at a later date. I will obviously receive/view the published item if and when it becomes available.
I have asked for:
‘ all information relating to the MoU from its current version to the present.’
I have not asked for the final version, that is not what I require.'
8. Where is the information I have requested, published?
I am aware of ‘recent’ guidance that has been issued by the NPCC. https://www.cmaclaims.co.uk/npcc-abi-nat... . This is not what I requested.
I ask to be provided the information I have requested.
Yours sincerely,
Phil Swift
Dear City of London Police,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of City of London Police's handling of my FOI request 'Memorandum of Understanding & National Guidance'.
10/08/2022 I sought information, but this has not been provided. Please advise by when I can expect a response.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
Yours faithfully,
Phil Swift
Phil Swift left an annotation ()
27/06/2022 ICO to CoLP
ICO complaint No: DPR-ICO2022/00786
I write in connection with your email dated 27th June in relation to a complaint by Philip Swift. You stated:
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Complaint from Philip Swift
Your reference FOI2022/00382
The Information Commissioner has received a complaint from the above named individual about your handling of this request.
We have carried out an initial assessment of this case and consider it eligible for formal consideration under section 50 of the FOIA.
Please note, although we have assessed this complaint as eligible no specific decision has yet been made as to its merits.
We will contact you in due course when this case is allocated to a case officer who will then provide you with further details of the complaint.
Action
The Commissioner will provide a public authority with one opportunity to justify its position. Once a case officer is assigned, you will be given a maximum of 20 working days to provide any withheld information and supporting submissions to the Commissioner.
Although no information needs to be provided to the ICO before then, the Commissioner expects the public authority to have used the time since receiving this correspondence to have thoroughly reviewed its handling of the request and to ensure that it is fully prepared and ready to provide its final, detailed submissions to the Commissioner. The public authority should already be clear and confident in its position, including any public interest arguments, and to have asked for opinions from interested third parties, if relevant. The public authority has already had two previous opportunities to do so when responding to the complainant.
Should the public authority consider, after reviewing its previous responses, that it is now appropriate to release some/all of the information previously withheld or that you hold information that you are now able to disclose, please provide the information to the complainant without delay and notify the ICO that you have done so.
The information you provide
As the regulator of information rights legislation we need to be transparent and accountable in our own work. The ICO is a public authority and data controller and we regularly receive requests for information such as copies of casework correspondence.
Although we want to disclose as much information as we can, there will be occasions when disclosure is not appropriate. Maintaining the confidence and trust of those who correspond with the Commissioner is important and therefore we need you to indicate whether any of the information you provide is confidential and should not be disclosed. This is not a matter of preference and needs to be supported by clear arguments for non-disclosure.
Should you reply to this email, please be aware that whilst submitted emails are monitored, we will not be able to address any detailed enquiries relating to the case until it has been allocated to a case officer for investigation. For more general enquiries, please call our helpline on 0303 123 1113.
Phil Swift left an annotation ()
Information Access Team
Information Management Services
Bishopsgate Police Station
182 Bishopsgate
London EC2M 4NP
foi @ cityoflondon.pnn.police.uk
Direct line 020 7601 2287
Our ref: DPR-ICO2022/00786
8th August 2022
Dear[redacted]
ICO complaint No: DPR-ICO2022/00786
The City of London Police Service (COLP) has completed its review and determined that our original section 22 exemption given in 2021 was correct.
The document requested is a national Memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Association of British Insurers and the National Police Chiefs Council which was being updated. At the time of Mr Swifts original request and subsequent internal reviews, we did not have a date for the MOU publication.
It has today been published and we have contacted Mr Swift to advise him.
I hope this concludes this complaint.
Phil Swift left an annotation ()
Note:
The CoLP disclosure makes events more confusing, odd.
My request went beyond seeking the completed document (which I possess).
The CoLP advise they had ‘today’ (08/08/2022) published the document .
The document ‘start date’ is the unspecific, ‘June 2022’.
I obtained a copy on or before, 04/08/2022 i.e. 4 days before it was published https://www.cmaclaims.co.uk/npcc-abi-nat... .
Why would guidance, effective as of 06/2022, not be published before or on that date?
Dear FOI FOI,
Please advise by when I can expect the outcome of the internal review.
The IR not having been completed within 20 working days, if an extension is sought, please advise the 'exceptional circumstances' giving rise to this.
Yours sincerely,
Phil Swift
Dear FOI,
Please advise by when I can expect the outcome of the internal review.
The IR not having been completed within 20 working days, if an extension is sought, please advise the 'exceptional circumstances' giving rise to this.
Yours sincerely,
Phil Swift
Mr P Swift left an annotation ()
to the ICO:
This request and its history appears here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
26/09/2022, I sought an IR. I have not received this
27/10/2022, I wrote:
‘Please advise by when I can expect the outcome of the internal review.
The IR not having been completed within 20 working days, if an extension is sought, please advise the 'exceptional circumstances' giving rise to this.’
I have not received a response. Please accept this complaint that the IR has not been provided within 20 working days. I wish to have explained what ;exceptional circumstances’ have given rise to the delay and why I have not been kept informed, had the delay explained.
Yours
P. Swift
Dear Phil Swift,
I am writing in response to your request for information from City of
London Police, received 26th September.
Please find attached our response.
Yours sincerely,
Phil Swift left an annotation ()
9th November 2022
Request for Information Internal Review Reference No: IR2022/01173
I write in connection with your request dated 26th September for an internal review in relation to your FoIA request (ref: FOI2022/01172). The request was as follows:
I am writing to request an internal review of City of London Police's handling of my FOI request 'Memorandum of Understanding & National Guidance'. 10/08/2022 I sought information, but this has not been provided. Please advise by when I can expect a response.
DECISION
The City of London Police Service (COLP) has completed its review and determined that
We would like to change the original exemption used.
It is our decision that this information is now subject to the following exemption in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act:
Section 21 – Information reasonably Accessible by other means
This information may be viewed via the following link NPCC & ABI National Guidance on Data Sharing - (cmaclaims.co.uk)
The publishing of the MOU is the responsibility of the ABI & NPCC, not COLP’s and as of today these have not been published in the public domain by them.
You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner (ICO) to investigate any aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning his investigation.
Thank you for your interest in the City of London Police.
Dear City of London Police,
Please:
1. explain how the information is 'reasonably Accessible by other means'. By 'information' I refer you to my original request and that this did not limit the disclosure to the finalised MoU.
I remain you, I asked about the MoU. I am aware there is a 2022 version, I have a copy and the link you have provided is to my company website. However, this does not address the request which went beyond this:
'In 2018, work was being undertaken on an MoU for insurers; guidance across forces outlining what information can be shared, in which circumstances, under the correct GDPR gateways and recommend a time scale and charging framework.
This involved your Information Management Services, the creation of draft documentation for ABI/Lloyds consultation with their members, submission to constabularies, endorsement of the National Crime Operations Coordination Committee, undergo consultation/rework, presented to the NPCC for agreed guidelines and cascading to their teams.
I am seeking all information relating to the MoU from its current version to the present.'
You have provided the current version.
2. Please provide all information relating to the MoU from its current version to the present. This will include the drafts, submissions, endorsements etc. cited above.
Yours faithfully,
Phil Swift
Dear City of London Police,
10/11/2022 I wrote:
1. explain how the information is 'reasonably Accessible by other means'. By 'information' I refer you to my original request and that this did not limit the disclosure to the finalised MoU.
I await the information.
Yours faithfully,
Phil Swift
Dear Mr Swift
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REF: FOI2021/00185
I refer to your request for information dated 15 February 2021:
In 2018, work was being undertaken on an MoU for insurers; guidance across
forces outlining what information can be shared, in which circumstances,
under the correct GDPR gateways and recommend a time scale and charging
framework.
This involved your Information Management Services, the creation of draft
documentation for ABI/Lloyds consultation with their members, submission
to constabularies, endorsement of the National Crime Operations
Coordination Committee, undergo consultation/rework, presented to the NPCC
for agreed guidelines and cascading to their teams.
I am seeking all information relating to the MoU from its current version
to the present.
On 4 March 2021 you were advised that the information was subject to the
exemption contained in Section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act –
Information Intended for Future Publication. The updated agreement itself
has now been published but the information relating to its development has
not and this part of your request has not been addressed. I confirm that
additional information is held by City of London Police. Please accept my
apologies for the delay in confirming or denying that this information is
held and either providing a copy or explaining why an exemption is
engaged.
The following documents were held by City of London Police at the time
your request was received:
10 draft copies of the agreement document, modified on various dates
between 19 July 2018 and 29 January 2021
14 emails sent or received between 27 January 2020 and 10 February 2021
In accordance with Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act all
personal data has been redacted from the emails
Information is exempt under section 40(2) if it constitutes personal data
of which the applicant is not the data subject and disclosure would
contravene any of the data protection principles. Disclosure of an
individual’s name is likely to be unfair and be in contravention of
principle one which states personal data should be processed lawfully,
fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject.
Individuals contributing to the development of the agreement document
would have a reasonable expectation that their names would not be placed
in the public domain. This is an absolute exemption and not subject to
the public interest test.
In accordance with Section 31 of the Freedom of information Act, 3
paragraphs have been redacted from the first email.
Information is exempt by virtue of section 31 where its disclosure would,
or would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the
apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the administration of
justice. This is a prejudice-based exemption subject to a harm test,
which is detailed below. It is also a qualified exemption subject to the
public interest test and the factors favouring disclosure and
non-disclosure are listed below.
Identification of harm
The information contains references to methods used to commit fraud and
avoid detection. Placing this information in the public domain would
compromise the ability of law enforcement authorities to prevent and
detect crime.
The public interest test
Factors favouring disclosure
Disclosure would demonstrate transparency and awareness by the City of
London Police of methods used to commit fraud and avoid detection.
Factors favouring non disclosure
Disclosure would place methods used to commit fraud and avoid detection in
the public domain where they may be viewed and acted upon by those willing
to commit insurance fraud. This could compromise the ability of law
enforcement agencies to prevent and detect crime.
Balancing the public interest
Whilst dsclosure would demonstrate transparency and awareness by the City
of London Police of methods used to commit fraud and avoid detection,
these benefits are outweighed by the prejudice to law enforcement,
particularly at a time when fraud offences are such a high proportion of
overall crime, with limited resources to prevent and detect such offences.
It is therefore my decision that the public interest favours
non-disclosure.
Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act
2 emails consist of communications with legal advisors.
Information is exempt by virtue of section 42 in respect of which a claim
to legal professional privilege or, in Scotland, to confidentiality of
communications could be maintained in legal proceedings. This is a
class-based exemption and it is not necessary to demonstrate the potential
for harm to occur. It is however a qualified exemption subject to the
public interest test and the factors favouring disclosure and
non-disclosure are listed below.
The public interest test
Factors favouring disclosure
Disclosure would demonstrate transparency and the level of expertise
employed in developing the agreement document.
Factors favouring non disclosure
The information relates to advice from a lawyer specifically engaged for
the purpose of ensuring the agreement document complies with relevant
legislation. The agreement document is subject to regular review and
disclosure of this information is likely to prejudice the frank nature of
lawyer/client communications and advice in general, and legal advice
sought when the document is next reviewed.
Balancing the public interest
Whilst disclosure would demonstrate transparency and the level of
expertise employed in developing the agreement document, the said document
is published following review and any changes will be evident. The value
of placing the information in the public domain is therefore limited. By
contrast, the prejudice the frank nature of lawyer/client communications
is likely to occur when the agreement document is next reviewed.
It is therefore my decision that the public interest favours
non-disclosure.
Section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act
2 emails originate from the ABI and were passed to the City of London
Police in confidence.
Information is exempt by virtue of section 41 if it was obtained by the
public authority from any other person (including another public
authority) and disclosure of the information to the public would
constitute an actionable breach of confidence by that, or any other
person. The information refers to legal advice subject to Legal
Professional Privilege and therefore has the necessary quality of
confidence. The ABI have passed the information to the City of London
Police on the understanding that it will only be used for the purpose of
developing the agreement document. This is a class-based exemption and it
is not necessary to demonstrate the potential for harm to occur. It is
also an absolute exemption not subject to the public interest test.
Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Dave Lockyear
Temporary Disclosure Officer
Information Access Team I City of London Police
e [1][email address]
w [2]www.cityoflondon.police.uk t [3]www.twitter.com/citypolice
Please consider the environment before printing my email
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Dave Lockyear
Temporary Disclosure Officer
Information Access Team I City of London Police
e [1][email address]
w [2]www.cityoflondon.police.uk t [3]www.twitter.com/citypolice
Please consider the environment before printing my email
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
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
Phil Swift left an annotation ()
to the ICO 10@41 19/05/2021