Neil Wallis - Consultancy Contract

P. John made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

The request was partially successful.

From: P. John

14 July 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Neil Wallis, ex-News of the World executive editor, was recently
arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications.

I understand from BBC News reports that the Met Police hired Mr
Wallis as a consultant for £24,000.

"As part of the contract, Mr Wallis advised the Commissioner's
Office, and the Directorate of Public Affairs and Specialist
Operations, working closely with Assistant Commissioner John Yates"
(*).

Please could you disclose to me;

- the dates and value of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- a scanned copy of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- any deliverable items (reports, documents, information, advice)
supplied by Mr Wallis to the Met
- any correspondence items (email, fax, or letters) between John
Yates (or other officers) and Mr Wallis during the period of his
contract(s)

Yours faithfully,
P John

(*) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14...

Link to this

P. John left an annotation (15 July 2011)

Quote-marks Telegraph: Phone Hacking: the deputy editor and dinner dates with Met's top officers

"Three weeks after Clive Goodman, the royal editor at the News of the World, was arrested on suspicion of phone hacking it might have seemed that the most likely place for a meeting between the paper’s deputy editor, Neil Wallis, and a senior Scotland Yard officer would have been a police interview room.

Instead, Mr Wallis was sitting down to dinner with Sir Paul Stephenson, the then Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, in the rather more convivial surroundings of a London restaurant. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8639218/...

Link to this

P. John left an annotation (15 July 2011)

Quote-marks Guardian; Arrested ex-News of the World executive Neil Wallis worked for Met

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul...

Link to this

From: P. John

17 July 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Further to my request for details of Neil Wallis Consultancy
Contract, and while waiting for your acknowledgment, I wonder if
you would also be so kind as to disclose the two competing tenders
that are described in the recent press statement by the Met (*).

I am keen to understand the contractual arrangements agreed with
Neil Wallis, who else was invited to bid, and at what price.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

(*)
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Statem...

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

18 July 2011

Dear P. John

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011070002443
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 14/07/2011. I note you seek
access to the following information:

"Neil Wallis, ex-News of the World executive editor, was recently arrested
on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications.

I understand from BBC News reports that the Met Police hired Mr Wallis as
a consultant for **24,000.

"As part of the contract, Mr Wallis advised the Commissioner's Office, and
the Directorate of Public Affairs and Specialist Operations, working
closely with Assistant Commissioner John Yates"
(*).

Please could you disclose to me;

- the dates and value of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- a scanned copy of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- any deliverable items (reports, documents, information, advice) supplied
by Mr Wallis to the Met
- any correspondence items (email, fax, or letters) between John Yates (or
other officers) and Mr Wallis during the period of his contract(s)

(*) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14...

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). 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 the MPS 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.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact me at the above e-mail address, quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Policy and Support Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

20 July 2011

Dear P. John

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011070002833
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 17/07/2011. I note you seek
access to the following information:

"Further to my request for details of Neil Wallis Consultancy Contract,
and while waiting for your acknowledgment, I wonder if you would also be
so kind as to disclose the two competing tenders that are described in the
recent press statement by the Met (*).

I am keen to understand the contractual arrangements agreed with Neil
Wallis, who else was invited to bid, and at what price.
(*)
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Statem...
"

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). 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 the MPS 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.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact me at the above e-mail address, quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Policy and Support Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

11 August 2011

Dear Mr John

Freedom of Information Request Reference Numbers: 2011070002443 and
2011070002833

I write in connection with your requests for information, which were
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 14 and 17 July 2011.
I note you seek access to the following information:

Neil Wallis, ex-News of the World executive editor, was recently arrested
on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications.

I understand from BBC News reports that the Met Police hired Mr Wallis as
a consultant for **24,000.

"As part of the contract, Mr Wallis advised the Commissioner's Office, and
the Directorate of Public Affairs and Specialist Operations, working
closely with Assistant Commissioner John Yates".

Please could you disclose to me;

- the dates and value of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- a scanned copy of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- any deliverable items (reports, documents, information, advice) supplied
by Mr Wallis to the Met
- any correspondence items (email, fax, or letters) between John Yates (or
other officers) and Mr Wallis during the period of his contract(s)

AND

Further to my request for details of Neil Wallis Consultancy
Contract, and while waiting for your acknowledgment, I wonder if you would
also be so kind as to disclose the two competing tenders that are
described in the recent press statement by the Met.

I am keen to understand the contractual arrangements agreed with Neil
Wallis, who else was invited to bid, and at what price.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering
whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified
exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest
before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application
of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(b) provides that we can
extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as
respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or
deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a
provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the
applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section
66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as
to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the
application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an
estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision
will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are
currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the
information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond
within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemptions:

Section 43 (Commercial interests)
Section 31 (Law Enforcement)

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 9 September
2011.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Michael McGuill
Information Manager

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again -

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

11 August 2011

Dear Mr John

Freedom of Information Request Reference Numbers: 2011070002443 and
2011070002833

I write in connection with your requests for information, which were
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 14 and 17 July 2011.
I note you seek access to the following information:

Neil Wallis, ex-News of the World executive editor, was recently arrested
on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications.

I understand from BBC News reports that the Met Police hired Mr Wallis as
a consultant for **24,000.

"As part of the contract, Mr Wallis advised the Commissioner's Office, and
the Directorate of Public Affairs and Specialist Operations, working
closely with Assistant Commissioner John Yates".

Please could you disclose to me;

- the dates and value of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- a scanned copy of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- any deliverable items (reports, documents, information, advice) supplied
by Mr Wallis to the Met
- any correspondence items (email, fax, or letters) between John Yates (or
other officers) and Mr Wallis during the period of his contract(s)

AND

Further to my request for details of Neil Wallis Consultancy
Contract, and while waiting for your acknowledgment, I wonder if you would
also be so kind as to disclose the two competing tenders that are
described in the recent press statement by the Met.

I am keen to understand the contractual arrangements agreed with Neil
Wallis, who else was invited to bid, and at what price.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering
whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified
exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest
before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application
of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(b) provides that we can
extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as
respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or
deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a
provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the
applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section
66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as
to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the
application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an
estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision
will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are
currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the
information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond
within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemptions:

Section 43 (Commercial interests)
Section 31 (Law Enforcement)

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 9 September
2011.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Michael McGuill
Information Manager

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again -

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Link to this

From: P. John

13 September 2011

Dear Mr McGuill,

On the 14 July I asked you to disclose to me;

- the dates and value of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- a scanned copy of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- any deliverable items (reports, documents, information, advice)
supplied by Mr Wallis to the Met
- any correspondence items (email, fax, or letters) between John
Yates (or other officers) and Mr Wallis during the period of his
contract(s)

On 11 August 2011 you told me that "the amended date for a response
is 9 September 2011".

It is now the 13 September and I have yet to receive your response.

You are presently breaking the law, your response being
substantially overdue. Which is rather a sad place for a Police
force to be in.

Please could you provide the information I requested from you
without *any* further delay, else I will begin escalating this
matter.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Link to this

P. John left an annotation (14 September 2011)

Quote-marks Spoke to Mr. McGuill 1pm today asking for an update. Response promised for later this afternoon.

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

14 September 2011


Attachment Redacted Chamy Media Contract.pdf.pdf
360K Download View as HTML

Attachment Redacted Chamy Invoices.pdf.pdf
150K Download View as HTML


Dear Mr John

Freedom of Information Request Reference Numbers: 2011070002443 and
2011070002833

I write in connection with your requests for information, which were
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 14 and 17 July 2011.
 I note you seek access to the following information:

Neil Wallis, ex-News of the World executive editor, was recently arrested
on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications.
     
I understand from BBC News reports that the Met Police hired Mr Wallis as
a consultant for £24,000.
     
"As part of the contract, Mr Wallis advised the Commissioner's Office, and
the Directorate of Public Affairs and Specialist Operations, working
closely with Assistant Commissioner John Yates".
     
Please could you disclose to me;
     
- the dates and value of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- a scanned copy of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- any deliverable items (reports, documents, information, advice) supplied
by Mr Wallis to the Met
- any correspondence items (email, fax, or letters) between John Yates (or
other officers) and Mr Wallis during the period of his contract(s)

AND

Further to my request for details of Neil Wallis Consultancy Contract, and
while waiting for your acknowledgment, I wonder if you would also be so
kind as to disclose the two competing tenders that are described in the
recent press statement by the Met.
     
I am keen to understand the contractual arrangements agreed with Neil
Wallis, who else was invited to bid, and at what price.

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS
to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at the Directorate of Public Affairs.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located a number of records relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to:

- fully exempt records relating to the request under section 31 (law
enforcement) and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Act;

- with the exception of a number of documents which have already been
released into the public domain under the Audit Commission Act, and which
I am therefore releasing, subject to certain redactions under section 40
(personal information).

The documents I am releasing are: a copy of the contract between Chamy
Media Ltd and the Metropolitan Police; and copies of invoices submitted by
Chamy Media Ltd to the Metropolitan Police (eight in number).

For information, I also direct you to the MPS' statement of 14 July 2011,
which contains some detail regarding the nature of the Chamy Media Ltd
contract:

http://content.met.police.uk/News/Statem...

An explanation of the exemptions I have applied follows below.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1)        A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in
part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request
or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 31 - Law Enforcement

Under Section 31 of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold
information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the
prevention or detection of crime, apprehension or prosecution of
offenders, or the administration of justice.

Section 43 - Commercial Interests

Information is exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the
public authority holding it).

Evidence of Harm

Exemptions under Section 31 of the Act are prejudice-based; therefore I am
required to consider the harm in disclosure. In this instance, disclosure
of material could potentially risk prejudicing or undermining the ongoing
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation into matters
relating to the contract, or any future legal proceedings related to it.

Public Interest Test

Exemption under Sections 31 and 43 of the Act are both qualified
exemptions; I am therefore required to conduct a public interest test, as
below.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure:

The MPS is a public authority and must therefore demonstrate its
accountability for its actions and the conduct of its employees. This is
particularly relevant where the issue of the use of public funds is
involved. The public release of information would demonstrate the MPS'
commitment to accountability and transparency, particularly in light of
the considerable public and media interest and debate around this issue.

Some of the information under consideration (the contract and invoices
related to it) has already been released into the public domain under the
Audit Commission Act, so for that information the public interest argument
for releasing again is strong.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure:

The circumstances under which the contract with Chamy Media Ltd was
awarded is currently the subject of an independent investigation by the
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). To disclose information
potentially pertinent to this investigation could risk prejudicing or
undermining that investigation or any related future legal proceedings.
Were this to happen, it would not serve the public interest well.

It could also be considered unfair to 'prematurely' release information
relating to individuals involved, prior to the conclusion of a proper
examination of that information by the IPCC investigation, which is
ongoing at this time.

The MPS also has a duty to protect the sensitive commercial information it
holds about any private company it has dealings with, including those who
bid for contracts through our tendering processes. By placing into the
public domain information which could impact in a negative way on their
ability to negotiate with current or future clients, MPS could damage
their commercial interests, and/or MPS' own ability to negotiate
competitive terms for goods and services in future.

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest at
this time.

I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
disclosed does not outweigh the arguments for exempting information
relating to the contract with Chamy Media Ltd and the circumstances under
which it was awarded (notwithstanding those documents which have already
been released into the public domain).

While there are strong arguments for releasing information at this time -
not least to demonstrate MPS' transparency and accountability in light of
significant public and media interest in these matters - I believe, in the
short term at least, the public interest is more properly served by
ensuring no action is taken which could interfere with a proper and
independent examination of the facts by the ongoing IPCC investigation. I
believe this position is strengthened by the fact that it can in principle
be revisited following the conclusion of the IPCC investigation.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.  

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Michael McGuill
Information Manager

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law.  Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again -

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

 

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

14 September 2011


Attachment Redacted Chamy Media Contract.doc.tif.pdf
345K Download View as HTML

Attachment Redacted Chamy Invoices.doc.tif.pdf
114K Download View as HTML


Dear Mr John

Freedom of Information Request Reference Numbers: 2011070002443 and
2011070002833

I write in connection with your requests for information, which were
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 14 and 17 July 2011.
 I note you seek access to the following information:

Neil Wallis, ex-News of the World executive editor, was recently arrested
on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications.
     
I understand from BBC News reports that the Met Police hired Mr Wallis as
a consultant for £24,000.
     
"As part of the contract, Mr Wallis advised the Commissioner's Office, and
the Directorate of Public Affairs and Specialist Operations, working
closely with Assistant Commissioner John Yates".
     
Please could you disclose to me;
     
- the dates and value of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- a scanned copy of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- any deliverable items (reports, documents, information, advice) supplied
by Mr Wallis to the Met
- any correspondence items (email, fax, or letters) between John Yates (or
other officers) and Mr Wallis during the period of his contract(s)

AND

Further to my request for details of Neil Wallis Consultancy Contract, and
while waiting for your acknowledgment, I wonder if you would also be so
kind as to disclose the two competing tenders that are described in the
recent press statement by the Met.
     
I am keen to understand the contractual arrangements agreed with Neil
Wallis, who else was invited to bid, and at what price.

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS
to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at the Directorate of Public Affairs.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located a number of records relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to:

- fully exempt records relating to the request under section 31 (law
enforcement) and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Act;

- with the exception of a number of documents which have already been
released into the public domain under the Audit Commission Act, and which
I am therefore releasing, subject to certain redactions under section 40
(personal information).

The documents I am releasing are: a copy of the contract between Chamy
Media Ltd and the Metropolitan Police; and copies of invoices submitted by
Chamy Media Ltd to the Metropolitan Police (eight in number).

For information, I also direct you to the MPS' statement of 14 July 2011,
which contains some detail regarding the nature of the Chamy Media Ltd
contract:

http://content.met.police.uk/News/Statem...

An explanation of the exemptions I have applied follows below.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1)        A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in
part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request
or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 31 - Law Enforcement

Under Section 31 of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold
information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the
prevention or detection of crime, apprehension or prosecution of
offenders, or the administration of justice.

Section 43 - Commercial Interests

Information is exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the
public authority holding it).

Evidence of Harm

Exemptions under Section 31 of the Act are prejudice-based; therefore I am
required to consider the harm in disclosure. In this instance, disclosure
of material could potentially risk prejudicing or undermining the ongoing
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation into matters
relating to the contract, or any future legal proceedings related to it.

Public Interest Test

Exemption under Sections 31 and 43 of the Act are both qualified
exemptions; I am therefore required to conduct a public interest test, as
below.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure:

The MPS is a public authority and must therefore demonstrate its
accountability for its actions and the conduct of its employees. This is
particularly relevant where the issue of the use of public funds is
involved. The public release of information would demonstrate the MPS'
commitment to accountability and transparency, particularly in light of
the considerable public and media interest and debate around this issue.

Some of the information under consideration (the contract and invoices
related to it) has already been released into the public domain under the
Audit Commission Act, so for that information the public interest argument
for releasing again is strong.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure:

The circumstances under which the contract with Chamy Media Ltd was
awarded is currently the subject of an independent investigation by the
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). To disclose information
potentially pertinent to this investigation could risk prejudicing or
undermining that investigation or any related future legal proceedings.
Were this to happen, it would not serve the public interest well.

It could also be considered unfair to 'prematurely' release information
relating to individuals involved, prior to the conclusion of a proper
examination of that information by the IPCC investigation, which is
ongoing at this time.

The MPS also has a duty to protect the sensitive commercial information it
holds about any private company it has dealings with, including those who
bid for contracts through our tendering processes. By placing into the
public domain information which could impact in a negative way on their
ability to negotiate with current or future clients, MPS could damage
their commercial interests, and/or MPS' own ability to negotiate
competitive terms for goods and services in future.

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest at
this time.

I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
disclosed does not outweigh the arguments for exempting information
relating to the contract with Chamy Media Ltd and the circumstances under
which it was awarded (notwithstanding those documents which have already
been released into the public domain).

While there are strong arguments for releasing information at this time -
not least to demonstrate MPS' transparency and accountability in light of
significant public and media interest in these matters - I believe, in the
short term at least, the public interest is more properly served by
ensuring no action is taken which could interfere with a proper and
independent examination of the facts by the ongoing IPCC investigation. I
believe this position is strengthened by the fact that it can in principle
be revisited following the conclusion of the IPCC investigation.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.  

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Michael McGuill
Information Manager

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law.  Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again -

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

 

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Link to this

From: P. John

15 September 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'Neil Wallis -
Consultancy Contract'.

In my request I asked the MPS to proved

- the dates and value of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- a scanned copy of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- any deliverable items (reports, documents, information, advice)
supplied by Mr Wallis to the Met
- any correspondence items (email, fax, or letters) between John
Yates (or other officers) and Mr Wallis during the period of his
contract(s)
and
- the two competing tenders that are described in the recent press
statement by the Met

The information you have provided includes the contract, but omits
the schedules to the contract. In paragraph 25 it states "This
Contract, including the Schedules attached hereto, constitute the
entire contract between the parties".

Please will you provide me with the full terms of the contract
including;
-schedule 1 of the contract (as referenced in paragraph 2. of the
contract).
- schedule 2 of the contract (as referenced paragrah 1 & 7.1 of the
contract).
- and other schedules that have not been disclosed

Mr. Wallis contract states that it will commence on 1 October 2009,
and terminate on 31 March 2010.

The invoices disclosed to me are dated as early as September 2009,
and as late as April/May 2010 (ie, clearly fall outside the period
covered by the contract disclosed).

Please will you provide me with the contract that covered the
period before October 1 2009, and the contract covering the period
after 31 March 2010. Else please confirm that Mr Wallis was working
without a contract before 1 October 2009, and without a contract
after 31 March 2010.

I asked you to disclose any deliverables supplied by Mr. Wallis to
MPS. You have disclosed no document to me. Please will you confirm
whether or not such documents (or other deliverables) exist, and
consider disclosing them to me if so.

I asked you to disclose any correspondence between MPS officers and
Mr. Wallis during the period of his contract. You have disclosed no
correspondence. Please will you confirm whether or not such
documents exist, and consider disclosing them if so.

In particular, the first invoice supplied by Mr Wallis in September
2009 makes reference to a 'purchase order' (despite the contract
commencing on October 1 2009). Please disclose that purchase order.

I asked you to disclose the details of the competing tenders
described in an MPS press release. Please will confirm whether or
not such proposals exist, and disclose them (with redactions to
protect personal information or commercial sensitive information
where necessary).

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

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Link to this

P. John left an annotation (15 September 2011)

Quote-marks Despite incorporating Chamy Media (07014662) on 10/09/2009, Wallis never bothered to file company accounts or annual returns, so there is no way to check the invoices against his accounts.

Chamy Media was struck off and dissolved 03/05/2011.

Link to this

P. John left an annotation (15 September 2011)

Quote-marks Fedorcio: John Yates conducted a form of due diligence on Mr Wallis. He can probably explain that to you later better than I can… I accept the integrity of Mr Yates. He is a senior officer in the organisation.

Yates: Due diligence is in the proper letting of a contract. I had absolutely nothing to do with that or the tendering process. That was a matter for Mr Fedorcio.

Link to this

P. John left an annotation (15 September 2011)

Quote-marks Lorraine Fullbrook: Mr Fedorcio, specifically on the employment of Mr Wallis, did you go out to tender for this contract?

Dick Fedorcio: Initially, my understanding at the time of the procurement boards was that the option of a single tender was in place. I asked and inquired about that, and was then given advice by the procurement department that this would require three quotes because of its size and scale. At that stage, I went and got three quotes, and of those three quotes, Mr Wallis was by far the cheapest.

Link to this

From: P. John

24 September 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

while waiting for your internal review, it may help you to locate
the information requested if I highlight Mr Fedorcio's oral
evidence to the Home Affairs Committee (*).

In evidence to MPs he said;

"Dick Fedorcio: I prepared a short specification, which I e-mailed
to the three people asking them to provide a costing for the work
that I was looking for on a retainer basis, based on an assessment
of around two days a month."

It is those responses, and ideally Mr. Fedorcio's invitation too,
that I am seeking.

More generally, it surprised me to learn that Chamy Media were not
incorporated until 10/09/2009, days before the contract was
awarded. (Chamy Media also failed to file accounts or annual
returns with Companies House). I thought a public procurement/due
diligence exercise might have identified these circumstances as
high risk factors.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

(*)
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commo...

Link to this

From: P. John

13 October 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

concerning my FoI request "Neil Wallis - Consultancy Contract",
please could you acknowledge my request dated 15 September seeking
an internal review.

Otherwise, a complaint to the Information Commissioner will follow.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ne...

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

28 October 2011

Dear Mr John

Freedom of Information Internal Review Reference No: 2011090002369

I write in connection with your request for the Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS) to review its response dated 14/09/2011 to your request for
information relating to:

* FOIA request reference no. 2011070002443

I have unfortunately been unable to complete a full internal review within
our target response time of 20 working days.  The MPS endeavour to respond
to your complaint ASAP and in any case no later than 17/11/2011.

Should there be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as
soon as possible.

Please accept my apologies for the delay and thank you for your patience

Should you have any further queries concerning this matter, please contact
me on telephone number 0207 161 3705 or at the address at the top of the
letter quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

Brian Wilson
FOIA Complaints Officer

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Link to this

From: P. John

8 December 2011

Dear Mr Wilson,

concerning my FoI request, 'Neil Wallis - Consultancy Contract',
you recently indicated to me that the "MPS endeavour to respond to
your complaint ASAP and in any case no later than 17/11/2011".

That date has passed without response.

Please will you provide me with the information requested
immediately, else the handling of this entire matter will become
the subject of a complaint to the Information Commissioner's
Office.

To recap; in my request I asked the MPS to proved

- the dates and value of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- a scanned copy of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- any deliverable items (reports, documents, information, advice)
supplied by Mr Wallis to the Met
- any correspondence items (email, fax, or letters) between John
Yates (or other officers) and Mr Wallis during the period of his
contract(s) and
- the two competing tenders that are described in the recent press
statement by the Met

The information you have provided includes the contract, but omits
the schedules to the contract. In paragraph 25 it states "This
Contract, including the Schedules attached hereto, constitute the
entire contract between the parties".

Please will you provide me with the full terms of the contract
including;
-schedule 1 of the contract (as referenced in paragraph 2. of the
contract).
- schedule 2 of the contract (as referenced paragrah 1 & 7.1 of the
contract).
- and other schedules that have not been disclosed

Mr. Wallis contract states that it will commence on 1 October 2009,
and terminate on 31 March 2010.

The invoices disclosed to me are dated as early as September 2009,
and as late as April/May 2010 (ie, clearly fall outside the period
covered by the contract disclosed).

Please will you provide me with the contract that covered the
period before October 1 2009, and the contract covering the period
after 31 March 2010. Else please confirm that Mr Wallis was working
without a contract before 1 October 2009, and without a contract
after 31 March 2010.

I asked you to disclose any deliverables supplied by Mr. Wallis to
MPS. You have disclosed no document to me. Please will you confirm
whether or not such documents (or other deliverables) exist, and
consider disclosing them to me if so.

I asked you to disclose any correspondence between MPS officers and
Mr. Wallis during the period of his contract. You have disclosed no
correspondence. Please will you confirm whether or not such
documents exist, and consider disclosing them if so.

In particular, the first invoice supplied by Mr Wallis in September
2009 makes reference to a 'purchase order' (despite the contract
commencing on October 1 2009). Please disclose that purchase order.

I asked you to disclose the details of the competing tenders
described in an MPS press release. Please will confirm whether or
not such proposals exist, and disclose them (with redactions to
protect personal information or commercial sensitive information
where necessary).

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

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Link to this

P. John left an annotation (29 December 2011)

Quote-marks ICO complaint sent 28/12/2011

Link to this

P. John left an annotation ( 4 January 2012)

Quote-marks "A free press is essential to a democracy as it can provide scrutiny of public institutions, such as the MPS, and is essential in providing information about what the police do. It is critical for policing legitimacy that the MPS are as open and transparent as they can be and the media plays an important part in this. On occasions the MPS has not been open enough in providing the right information to the public."
- Elizabeth Filkin

"The relationship we have with the media is an important one, we want to be as open and transparent as possible with the press because we are a public service and we need to be held to account, and we need the press and the public to help us prevent and detect crime."
- Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe

http://content.met.police.uk/News/The-Et...

Link to this

From: P. John

13 January 2012

FOIA request reference no. 2011070002443

Dear Mr Wilson,

I hope you had a pleasant Christmas.

You indicated to me in October last year that the "MPS endeavour to
respond to your complaint ASAP and in any case no later than
17/11/2011". Sadly another month has passed without your
anticipated response.

Consequently the MPS handling of this request is now
the subject of a complaint to the Information Commissioner's
Office.

To recap; in my request I asked the MPS to provide;

- the dates and value of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- a scanned copy of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)
- any deliverable items (reports, documents, information, advice)
supplied by Mr Wallis to the Met
- any correspondence items (email, fax, or letters) between John
Yates (or other officers) and Mr Wallis during the period of his
contract(s) and
- the two competing tenders that are described in the recent press
statement by the Met

The information you have provided includes the contract, but omits
the schedules to the contract. In paragraph 25 it states "This
Contract, including the Schedules attached hereto, constitute the
entire contract between the parties".

Please will you provide me with the entire contract including;
-schedule 1 of the contract (as referenced in paragraph 2. of the
contract).
- schedule 2 of the contract (as referenced paragrah 1 & 7.1 of the
contract).
- and other schedules that have not been disclosed

Mr. Wallis contract states that it will commence on 1 October 2009,
and terminate on 31 March 2010.

The invoices disclosed to me are dated as early as September 2009,
and as late as April/May 2010 (ie, clearly fall outside the period
covered by the contract disclosed).

Please will you provide me with the contract that covered the
period before October 1 2009, and the contract covering the period
after 31 March 2010. Else please confirm that Mr Wallis was working
without a contract before 1 October 2009, and without a contract
after 31 March 2010.

I asked you to disclose any deliverables supplied by Mr. Wallis to
MPS. You have disclosed no document to me. Please will you confirm
whether or not such documents (or other deliverables) exist, and
consider disclosing them to me if so.

I asked you to disclose any correspondence between MPS officers and
Mr. Wallis during the period of his contract. You have disclosed no
correspondence. Please will you confirm whether or not such
documents exist, and consider disclosing them if so.

In particular, the first invoice supplied by Mr Wallis in September
2009 makes reference to a 'purchase order' (despite the contract
commencing on October 1 2009). Please disclose that purchase order
(ref 5520-233-855?).

I asked you to disclose the details of the competing tenders
described in an MPS press release. Please will confirm whether or
not such proposals exist, and disclose them (with redactions to
protect personal information or commercial sensitive information
where necessary).

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

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

19 January 2012

Dear Mr John,

Although there is no statutory time limit in relation to the completion of an internal review of a Freedom of Information Act request, the MPS aim to complete internal reviews within 20 working days or in exceptional cases within 40 working days. This is based upon guidance issued by the Information Commissioner in relation to reasonable timescales for the internal review process.

All FoIA requests and internal reviews are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The internal review is intended to provide a fair and thorough review of handling issues and of decisions taken pursuant to the Act, including decisions taken about where the public interest lies in respect of exempt information. It should enable a fresh decision to be taken on a reconsideration of all the factors relevant to the request.

Regretfully in this instance, it has not been possible to provide you with a response to your complaint within our target timescale. This is due in part to a record number of FoIA requests received by the MPS in 2011 (4,330 requests received in 2011 vs 3,452 in 2010 - a 25% increase) which has led to a similar increase in the volume of FoIA complaints.

Against this background and with specific regard to your request, enquiries are ongoing in relation to considering the suitability of the information requested for disclosure and locating additional information that may be within the scope of your request and/or beyond the scope of the information that was considered in relation to your original FoI request.

With this in mind, I hope to provide you with a full response to your request for an internal review ASAP and in any case no later than 16/02/2012.

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused by the delay.

Should you have any further queries concerning this matter, please contact me on 020 7161 3705 or by responding to this e-mail, quoting reference number 2011090002369.

Regards,

Brian Wilson
Freedom of Information Complaints Officer | Public Access Office | Security Standards and Architecture | Directorate of Information |
Tel: 0207 161 3705 (ext: 783705)
Address: 20th Floor, PO Box 57192, London, SW6 1SF

Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to consideration for release under the Data Protection Act, Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will consider information for release unless there is are valid and proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such. Further advice can be obtained from the Public Access Office - 0207 161 3500 (ext. 783500).

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: P. John

19 January 2012

Dear Mr Wilson,

many thanks for your note, I look forward to receiving the
documentation requested.

It has now been ~135 working days since I first asked for this
information, and ~90 working days since I requested an internal
review.

That is more than double the absolute maximum time specified by the
ICO (and MPS), even in 'exceptional' circumstances.

ICO guidance states that "In our view, in no case should the total
time taken [for internal review] exceed 40 working days".

many thanks,
Yours faithfully,

P. John

Link to this

P. John left an annotation (20 January 2012)

Quote-marks BBC: IPCC passes Met press chief file to Scotland Yard

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16580135

Link to this

From: P. John

16 February 2012

Dear Mr. Wilson,

on 14 July last year I submitted a FoI request to Met Police
concerning a contract between Neil Wallis/Chamy Media and Dick
Fedorcio.

I was told on 18 July, "You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act".

Despite that assurance, on 11 August I was told that the date for a
response was being postponed to 9 September 2011.

When 9 September came and went without the requested information
being supplied. I wrote again on 13 September reminding you that
you had failed to provide the required information on the date
promised.

A response came on the 14 September, missing significant portions
of the information requested. Particularly, the complete contract,
the purchase order, and the competitive bids supposedly obtained by
Mr Fedorcio.

So I asked for an internal review on 15 September.

According to the ICO, an internal review should be "completed
within 20 working days or in exceptional cases within 40 working
days".

On 24 September, I wrote to you highlighting email records
described by Mr Fedorcio, that would have facilitated a complete
disclosure.

On 28 October you told me that you were unable to complete the
review within the normal 20 days. You assured me that the "MPS
endeavour to respond to your complaint ASAP and in any case no
later than 17/11/2011".

Yet 17 November came and went, without the completion of the
Internal Review, and despite your guarantee that it would be “no
later”.

On 8 December I wrote to you again, and was simply ignored.

I wrote to you again on 13 January, and you responded on 19 January
once again assuring me that I would receive "a full response to
your request for an internal review ASAP and in any case no later
than 16/02/2012".

16 February has now come and gone without the Internal Review being
completed, despite your second guarantee that in any case it would
be “no later” than 16 February.

Please ensure that the Internal Review includes a *comprehensive
explanation* for the succession of delays to my request since 14
July, and the failure of the MPS to provide the information first
requested in July last year.

It is my belief that MPS are deliberately and unlawfully attempting
to conceal information relevant to my request and in the public
interest without good cause, and needlessly delaying the response
in a deliberate attempt to obstruct the right of public access that
information.

Please can I insist that you place this matter in the hands of your
senior line managers. I will not accept a further postponement of
this process.

A second complaint to the Information Commissioner will be sent
tomorrow morning.

regards
P John

Link to this

P. John left an annotation (20 February 2012)

Quote-marks ICO FoI Ref FS50429674

Link to this

From: P. John

5 March 2012

Dear Wilson,

you have now failed to meet your own deadline, and are about to
breach a deadline set by the ICO for the completion of your
internal review.

By co-incidence, the former MPS commissioner, Paul Stephenson
appeared before the Leveson inquiry today.

His reportedly said; "I would have been concerned that Dick was
doing the right thing by the organisation, and doing the right
thing by his deputy … out of that I've no doubt came the
recruitment of Neil Wallis".

Please disclose the requested documentation (contract details,
purchase orders, correspondence, etc) to me so that I can verify
the accuracy of his assertion.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

6 March 2012

Dear Mr John

Freedom of Information Internal Review Reference No: 2011090002369

I write in connection with your correspondence dated 15/09/2011 requesting
that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response dated
14/09/2011 to your request for information relating to Freedom of
Information Request reference numbers 2011070002443 and 2011070002833.
 For ease of reference, I have numbered your queries as follows:  

Please could you disclose to me:

1.        The dates and value of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)

2.        A scanned copy of Mr Wallis consultancy contract(s)

3.        Any deliverable items (reports, documents, information, advice)
supplied by Mr Wallis to the Met

4.        Any correspondence items (email, fax, or letters) between John
Yates (or other officers) and Mr Wallis during the
            period of his contract(s); and

5.        The two competing tenders that are described in the recent press
statement by the Met

Your complaint also requested the following information that was not
supplied in response to you original request:

6.        Please will you provide me with the full terms of the contract
including;
a.        schedule 1 of the contract (as referenced in paragraph 2. of the
contract).
b.        schedule 2 of the contract (as referenced paragraph 1 & 7.1 of
the contract).
c.        and other schedules that have not been disclosed

7.        Please will you provide me with the contract that covered the
period before October 1 2009, and the contract
            covering the period after 31 March 2010. Else please confirm
that Mr Wallis was working without a contract before 1
             October 2009, and without a contract after 31 March 2010.
8.        In particular, the first invoice supplied by Mr Wallis in
September 2009 makes reference to a 'purchase order' (despite
             the contract commencing on October 1 2009). Please disclose
that purchase order.

DECISION

The MPS response dated 14/09/2011 provided you with a copy of the contract
between Chamy Media and the MPS together with 8 invoices submitted by
Chamy Media to the MPS and a link to an MPS press release regarding the
Chamy Media contract.  In relation to any other information relating to
the request, you were advised that the information requested was exempt
subject to the provisions of:

* Section 17 - Refusal of Request
* Section 31 - Law Enforcement
* Section 43 - Commercial Interests

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to

* Set aside the original decision

Upon review I have decided that the information requested is fully exempt
subject to the provisions of Section 17(5) and Section 12(2).

REASON FOR DECISION        

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 and related documents that are referred to in this letter.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory right of access to
information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a
request must confirm whether they hold the requested information and if
so, communicate it to the applicant. Furthermore, the Freedom of
Information Act is designed to place information into the public domain.
Therefore, once access to information is granted to one person under the
Act, it is then considered to be public information and must be
communicated to any individual upon request.

The right of access to information is subject to a number of exemptions
that are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information
that is not suitable for release.

Section 12 - Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit

Under Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, public
authorities are not required to comply with a request for information if
the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit.

The appropriate limit has been specified in regulations and for agencies
outside central Government; this is set at £450.00.   This represents the
estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours [at a rate of £25 per hour]
in determining whether the MPS holds the information, and then locating,
retrieving and extracting the information.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) Guidance titled 'Using the
Fees Regulations' states:

'In estimating whether complying with a request would exceed the
appropriate limit, Regulation 4 (3) states that an authority can only take
into account the costs it reasonably expects to incur in:

*  determining whether it holds the information;
* locating the information, or a document containing it;
* retrieving the information, or a document containing it; and
* extracting the information from a document containing it.'

The ICO guidance further states:

'Section 12 makes it clear that a public authority does not have to make a
precise calculation of the costs of complying with a request.  Only an
estimate is required ... what amounts to a reasonable estimate can only be
considered on a case by case basis…where a reasonable estimate has been
made that the appropriate limit would be exceeded, there is no requirement
for a public authority to undertake work up to the limit.'

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

I estimate that the cost of determining whether the MPS holds information
within the scope of your request would exceed the appropriate limit.

In your correspondence, you have requested 'any deliverable items…supplied
by Mr Wallis to the Met' and 'any correspondence items… between John Yates
(or other officers) and Mr Wallis during the period of his contract(s)'.  

The use of words such as 'any' and 'other officers' means that the scope
of your request is potentially wide ranging and difficult to define.  The
information requested would encompass electronic and hard copy information
and could be held within a number of locations and/or departments.
 Furthermore, the open ended nature of the request means that it would not
be possible for the MPS to definitively state whether all the information
within the scope of your request had been retrieved.

To illustrate this point, I have conducted a rough estimation of the time
that would be required to retrieve information in relation to you request.
 The Metropolitan Police Service employs in excess of 30,000 police
officers. Using 30,000 police officers as a basis, it would be necessary
to search, retrieve and extract all the information relevant to a
particular police officer within 2 seconds. This has been calculated by
dividing the appropriate cost limit (18 hours or 1,080 minutes) by the
number of police officers (30,000) i.e.1080 / 30,000.  This equals 0.036
which equates to 2 seconds.  

Appropriate limit (1,080) ÷ No. of individuals (30,000) = Time required
per police officer
Or
1,080 ÷ 30,000 = 0.036 (i.e. 2 seconds)

The far ranging nature of the information requested and the number of
variables also make estimating the total amount of time required to comply
with your request difficult which is why I have provided a reasonable
estimate of the time necessary to determine the information held per
police officer employed by the MPS.

I believe it would reasonably take in excess of 2 seconds per police
officer to determine whether additional information is held by the MPS in
relation to your request.  

Similar considerations would also apply to your request for "any
deliverable items" provided by Mr Wallis (i.e. question 3) "to the Met" as
the scope of the request would relate to work produced between October
2009 and September 2010, more than a year prior to your Freedom of
Information Act request.  It would also include around 20,000 police staff
in addition to the 30,000 police officers referred to in question 4.

Aggregation

Section 12(4) of the Freedom of Information Act and Regulation 5 of the
Fees Regulations enables the cost of complying with multiple requests to
be aggregated where two or more requests are received within the same 60
working day period and relate to any extent to the same, or similar,
information.  This includes multiple requests within the same
correspondence.  This is explained by the ICO within their 'Lines to take'
guidance (ref:LTT145) which states:

'Technically, multiple requests within a single item of correspondence are
separate requests for the purpose of section 12. If a public authority has
applied the exclusion under section 12 to multiple requests within a
single item of correspondence, we need to be satisfied that each request
can be aggregated in accordance with the Fees Regulations.  If it is found
that one of the multiple requests is not similar to the others, the public
authority will not be entitled to refuse that particular request under
section 12 unless complying with the request by itself would exceed the
cost limit.'

http://www.ico.gov.uk/foikb/FOIPolicyAgg...

All of your queries broadly relate to the MPS contract with Chamy Media.

Therefore, if the cost of complying with one question (i.e. question 4)
exceeds 18 hours, it follows that the cost of complying with all the
questions posed would also exceed the cost limit.

The rationale presented above is in relation to determining whether the
information requested is held and does not include the additional time
that would be required to locate, retrieve and extract the information.

With the above considerations in mind, I believe that compliance with your
request would exceed the appropriate cost limit.  Under section 12(2) of
the Act, the MPS is exempt from the requirement to comply with section
1(1)(a) i.e. to confirm in writing whether the MPS holds the information
requested.

Advice and assistance

Section 16(1) of the Act places a duty on public authorities to provide
reasonable advice and assistance to applicants. Section 16(2) states that:

'Any public authority which, in relation to the provision of advice or
assistance in any case, conforms with the code of practice under section
45 is to be taken to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in
relation to that case.'

A copy of the Code of Practice issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of
Information Act can be found at the link below:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/gui...

In relation to section 12, the Section 45 Code of Practice states:

'Where an authority is not obliged to comply with a request for
information because, under section 12(1) and regulations made under
section 12, the cost of complying would exceed the "appropriate limit"
(i.e. cost threshold) the authority should consider providing an
indication of what, if any, information could be provided within the cost
ceiling. The authority should also consider advising the applicant that by
reforming or re-focusing their request, information may be able to be
supplied for a lower, or no, fee.'

To this end, if the request were refined to exclude questions 3 and 4, it
would be possible to confirm whether information is held in respect of
questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8.  It is likely, however, that in respect of
1, 2, 5 and 8, the information, if held, would be exempt from disclosure
under other provisions of the Act, including those relied upon in the
original response to your request.  

It may assist you to know that similar information was within the scope of
another FoIA request.  The internal review in that case determined that
the information was exempt subject to the provisions of section 31.  The
decisive factor in that instance was the ongoing IPCC investigation
relating to the Chamy Media contract. I believe that similar
considerations would be likely to apply to this aspect of your request, if
it was refined so that it fell below the estimated costs limit.  Please
note that the public interest favouring non-disclosure will remain strong
whilst there is still the possibility of legal or disciplinary action in
relation to Mr Dick Fedorcio.  

Furthermore, this information is planned for future publication and is
therefore likely to be exempt under section 22(1) of the Act in relation
to future requests for information.  The publication timescale is yet to
be determined and will be considered once the information is no longer
prejudicial to any future legal or disciplinary action.

In respect of the questions 3 and 4, the estimated time that it may take
to respond to your requests may be reduced if you are able to narrow down
the variables involved.  It may assist if you were able to identify the
individuals to whom the correspondence or deliverable items that you
request may have been sent to or sent by, rather than to "the Met"
generally, or "other officers".  It may also assist if you were to specify
particular deliverable items that you are interested in rather than
referring to "any" items.  

Procedural Issues - Internal Review ref: 2011090002369

There is no statutory time limit in relation to the completion of an
internal review of a Freedom of Information response.  However, the MPS
aim to complete internal reviews within 20 working days or in exceptional
cases within 40 working days.  This is based upon guidance issued by the
Information Commissioner in relation to reasonable timescales for the
internal review process.

Your complaint was received in exceptional circumstances during a year in
which the MPS received and processed an unprecedented volume of enquiries
subject to the Freedom of Information Act.  Over the same period, there
have been significant, changes within the MPS at a senior level including
a number of individuals leaving the MPS.  As a result, it has not been
possible to contact a number of individuals who may have an awareness of
where information may be held in relation to your request.  There have
also been several overlapping and ongoing enquiries to retrieve
information of a historic nature in  response to various requests for
information.

All requests and internal reviews are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
 The internal review is intended to provide a fair and thorough review of
handling issues and of decisions taken pursuant to the Act, including
decisions taken about where the public interest lies in respect of exempt
information. It should enable a fresh decision to be taken on a
reconsideration of all the factors relevant to the request.

Regretfully in this instance, it has not been possible to provide you with
a response to your complaint within our target timescale. However, the
primary reason for this was to locate information pertinent to your
request that would be suitable for disclosure.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for any inconvenience
that may have been caused by the delay in providing you with a full
response to your complaint.

I trust that you will be satisfied that a fair and thorough review has
been conducted in relation to your complaint and that the reasons for any
decisions have been explained to you in full.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact Brian Wilson on 0207 161 3705 or Mike Lyng on 0207 161 3605 or at
the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng FOIA Quality and Assurance Advisor
Sent on behalf of Brian Wilson FOIA Complaints Officer

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 1 (General right of access to information held by public
authorities) of the
Act states:

(1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is
entitled-
(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds
information of the
description specified in the request, and
(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Section 10 (Time for compliance with request) of the Act states:

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply
with section 1(1)
promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day
following the date of
receipt.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Section 12(1) and 12(2) (Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds
appropriate limit) of the Act states:

(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of
complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.

(2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its
obligation to comply with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the
estimated cost of complying with that paragraph alone would exceed the
appropriate limit.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Section 16 (Duty to provide advice and assistance) of the Act states:

(1) It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and
assistance, so far as it
would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who
propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it.
(2) Any public authority which, in relation to the provision of advice or
assistance in any
case, conforms with the code of practice under section 45 is to be taken
to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in relation to that
case.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Section 17(5) (Refusal of a request) of the Act states:

(5) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that
fact.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and
Fees) Regulations 2004 state:

The appropriate limit
3.-(1) This regulation has effect to prescribe the appropriate limit
referred to in section 9A(3) and (4) of the 1998 Act and the appropriate
limit referred to in section 12(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act.
(2) In the case of a public authority which is listed in Part I of
Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, the appropriate limit is £600.
(3) In the case of any other public authority, the appropriate limit is
£450.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/...

Estimating the cost of complying with a request - general
4.-(1) This regulation has effect in any case in which a public authority
proposes to estimate whether the cost of complying with a relevant request
would exceed the appropriate limit.
(2) A relevant request is any request to the extent that it is a request-
(a) for unstructured personal data within the meaning of section 9A(1) of
the 1998 Act, and to which section 7(1) of that Act would, apart from the
appropriate limit, to any extent apply, or
(b) information to which section 1(1) of the 2000 Act would, apart from
the appropriate limit, to any extent apply.
(3) In a case in which this regulation has effect, a public authority may,
for the purpose of its estimate, take account only of the costs it
reasonably expects to incur in relation to the request in-
(a) determining whether it holds the information,
(b) locating the information, or a document which may contain the
information,
(c) retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the
information, and
(d) extracting the information from a document containing it.
(4) To the extent to which any of the costs which a public authority takes
into account are attributable to the time which persons undertaking any of
the activities mentioned in paragraph (3) on behalf of the authority are
expected to spend on those activities, those costs are to be estimated at
a rate of £25 per person per hour.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/...

Part II of the Code of Practice issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of
Information Act states:

Advice and assistance and fees
14. Where an authority is not obliged to comply with a request for
information because, under section 12(1) and regulations made under
section 12, the cost of complying would exceed the "appropriate limit"
(i.e. cost threshold) the authority should consider providing an
indication of what, if any, information could be provided within the cost
ceiling. The authority should also consider advising the applicant that by
reforming or re-focusing their request, information may be able to be
supplied for a lower, or no, fee.'
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/gui...
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Link to this

From: P. John

6 March 2012

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

"I trust that you will be satisfied".

I think you may be disappointed to learn that I find it hard to
"trust" your organisation at all.

The succession of delays responding to this request, and your
decision to withhold documents which I clearly specified to you,
does nothing to improve my confidence in an organisation that is
already compromised by serious corruption.

I am tempted to wonder whether News International employees - such
as Mr Wallis - would have faced quite so much obstruction when
seeking information from your force.

Presently the MPS is a disagrace to the efforts of the few honest
policemen in the UK.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Link to this

P. John left an annotation (29 March 2012)

Quote-marks BBC: Met Police press chief Dick Fedorcio resigns

"The communications chief at the Metropolitan Police, Dick Fedorcio, has resigned after proceedings for gross misconduct were started against him. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17548876

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) only:

Follow this request

There are 2 people following this request

Offensive? Unsuitable?

Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).

If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators

Report this request

Act on what you've learnt

Similar requests

More similar requests

Event history details

Are you the owner of any commercial copyright on this page?