We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Neil Wilby please sign in and let everyone know.

Non-compliant FOIA requests & internal reviews

We're waiting for Neil Wilby to read a recent response and update the status.

Dear North Yorkshire Police,

Please provide the following information:

Between 1st July, 2016 and 1st September 2016

(i) How many FOIA requests were due for finalisation (within the statutory 20 working day period) ?
(ii) How many were finalised in a compliant manner?
(iii) How many were non-compliant?
(iv) How many FOIA request internal reviews were due for finalisation (within the 20 working day period) ?
(v) How many were finalised in a compliant manner?
(vi) How many were non-compliant? That is to say still not finalised at 1st September, 2016.

Please provide in all cases:

(vii) The NYP FOI file reference for the request/internal review falling due for finalistaion in the period between 1st July, 2016 and 1st September 2016
(viii) The date the request, internal review was submitted to NYP
(ix) The date the request, internal review was finalised by NYP

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Classification: PROTECT

Good afternoon,

Your Freedom of Information Request has been logged under the reference 517.2016-17. If you have any queries whilst waiting for our response, please write in quoting the reference number stated above.

Kind regards,

Robert Bates
Collar Number 5480
Legal Officer (Civil Disclosure)
North Yorkshire Police

Committed to the Code of Ethics
 
Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number. If using my collar number please state each number individually.
 
Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk
Facebook: www.facebook.com/NorthYorkshirePolice
Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYorksPolice

show quoted sections

Malone, Ashley, North Yorkshire Police

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Wilby

Please find attached response to your Freedom of Information Act request
made to North Yorkshire Police under reference 517.2016-17.

Kind Regards

Ashley Malone

Collar Number 4951

Police Lawyer (Civil Disclosure)

Solicitor

Joint Corporate Legal Services

North Yorkshire Police

Committed to the Code of Ethics

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number.
If using my collar number please state each number individually.

 

www.northyorkshire.police.uk

 

 

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT
ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

 

 

show quoted sections

 

Dear North Yorkshire Police,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of North Yorkshire Police's handling of my FOI request 'Non-compliant FOIA requests & internal reviews'.

These ae the grounds for complaint:

1. a. The policy regarding publication of personal information on this website is, presently, the subject of separate email discussions with CDU staff.

b. One is with Liz Fryar concerning the publication of personal data on this website in redacted form. I last emailed Ms Fryar on 28th September, 2016 in which I made my position clear. That email remains unacknowledged.

c. Another with Robert Bates (now taken over by Liz Fryar) concerning remedy for not only personal information published about me on this website by NYP CDU as part of finalisations (427.2016.17 and 330.2016.17), but false information. The remedy proposed thus far falls far short of what would be regarded, on an independent view, as satisfactory.

d. It is a ground for complaint that those matters at a. b. and c. should have been resolved prior to finalisation of this request. Even if it was necessary to delay the finalisation of the instant request. For the avoidance of doubt, and in the present circumstances, this complaint is made on the face of the finalisation provided on this website.

e. It is also a ground for complaint that the finalisation was not provided in full, and personal information redacted where deemed necessary.

2. The request has been refused as 'vexatious'. The test for a request to be deemed as such is “a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of FOIA” (Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)). The instant request does not go anywhere near reaching that threshold.

3. Judge Wikeley in Dransfield further held that "(classifying a request as vexatious) must not be used to avoid being held to account, or simply because the public authority faces a request the objective reason for which is not immediately self-evident".

4. The request has a serious and proper purpose. No evidence has been provided, or sought, to the contrary.

5. It places no significant burden on either NYP, or it's CDU staff. The requested information should be readily to hand.

6. The request is short, plainly expressed and cannot, concievably, have been construed to cause distress, alarm or harassment.

7. It is not part of a series of other requests made to NYP. It is connected to only one other made to NYP which concerned non-compliant data access requests. The finalisation of that request revealed lawbreaking by both NYP on a surprising scale. It has, undoubtedly, caused embarassment to the chief constable.

8. It's value to the wider world is:

(a) to place into context the holder of an elected policing oversight role where the highest standards of conduct and observance of statute is paramount. She has sworn an Oath of Office to that effect. On all known evidence, disclosure of the requested data would reveal further lawbreaking

(b) Test the claim made by the PCC at a meeting with me on 18th April, 2016 that 'things would improve' from the lawless base from which NYP/NYPCC (previously NYPA) have operated over the past five years (at least).

(c) Test the claim made in court pleadings dated 15th July, 2016 that ALL information requests made to NYP have been complaint and ALL future requests will be compliant.

(The matters raised at paras 4 to 8 also reflect the appropriate tests in Judge Wikeley's findings).

9. This is the type of information (or performance data), concerning the public-facing functions of police forces that should be publicly available in any event. It is precisely the type of information that the Home Affairs Select Committee referred to in 2011, 2013 and 2014 when criticising public authorities over their opaque approach to disclosure.

10. a. There is an ulterior motive behind NYP classifying this request as 'vexatious', more concerned with the county court claim (C1QZ56W6) in which I am claimant and the chief constable is defendant. The case pleaded does, of course, concern the lawless conduct of the PCC over FOIA and DPA requests:

https://neilwilby.com/2016/06/10/chief-c...

b. It is unethical, an abuse of data principles and of the court's process to finalise an information request with that purpose in mind. Particularly, as the officer finalising the request is a witness for the PCC in that claim.

c. The finalisation in the instant request, together with this complaint, may be used in submissions in that county court claim (the evidence has already been filed and served).

11. This latest clasification of an information request as 'vexatious' (the third in three days) is part of a lengthy and sustained campaign to vex, annoy and harass me by NYP CDU staff, particularly it's Head of Department. An observation I have made previously on a number of occasions - and reserved my complaint rights accordingly. This latest episode goes to the evidence of that complaint.

12. The campaign referred to at 11 is also designed to add the burden of time and expense to every request I make. Presumably, in the hope I will cease to make further requests.

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

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Dear Mr Wilby,

I confirm that NYP have received your request for an internal review of 517.2016-17. A response will be sent to you in due course.

Kind Regards

Liz

Liz Fryar
Collar Number 4437
Legal Officer – Civil Disclosure
Joint Corporate Legal Services
North Yorkshire Police

Please note my normal working days are Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number. If using my collar number please state each number individually.

www.northyorkshire.police.uk

Committed to the Code of Ethics

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

show quoted sections

Fryar, Liz, North Yorkshire Police

1 Attachment

Good afternoon,

 

Please see attached response to your request for review (517.2016-17),

 

Kind Regards

 

Liz

 

Liz Fryar

Collar Number 4437

Legal Officer – Civil Disclosure

Joint Corporate Legal Services

North Yorkshire Police

 

Please note my normal working days are Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and
Friday.

 

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number.
If using my collar number please state each number individually.

 

[1]www.northyorkshire.police.uk

 

 

Committed to the Code of Ethics

 

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT
ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

 

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/

Dear North Yorkshire Police,

A S50 complaint has now been logged with the Information Commissioner's Office.

The grounds for complaint are as follows:

1. The officer finalising the internal review (Liz Fryar) was herself the subject of complaint within the request. It offends natural justice that an officer investigates complaints against herself.

2. Other data controllers with whom I interact regularly (almost exclusively policing bodies) have robust, ethical systems in place that comply with College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice for dealing with FOIA complaints. I quote just three examples:

(i) South Yorks Police internal reviews are dealt with by the Head of Information Services.

(ii) West Yorkshire OPCC refer their internal review requests to an internal audit board.

(iii) Metropolitan Police internal reviews are dealt with by a Senior Information Manager (they also have a Triage Department that prioritises requests/complaints).

North Yorkshire Police have no such hierarchal arrangement in place; no quality assurance systems; notably poor leadership from both the data controller (a chief constable, no less) and the head of the NYP Civil Disclosure Unit (CDU) who is also the Force Solicitor. The Unit is, seemingly, staffed by poorly trained officers whom, generally, leave the impression of having little, or no, appreciation of their responsibilities under the Act. The guiding light appears to be: Will disclosure damage the reputation of the force? If so, frustrate the requester(s) and hope he, she or they go away.

In the case of the requester he has been subjected to months of conduct that appears largely designed to vex, annoy and harass. This has been the subject of many complaints already, to both the CDU and Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) - and is repeated here for emphasis.

3. The responses to grounds 1 a, b, c and d of the complaint are wholly unstaisfactory save for the admission that personal data has been published in open forum by Liz Fryar. It is not accepted that the disclosure of that information was inadvertent. The requester's submission is that it was deliberate, designed to smear and part of the wider campaign to vex, annoy and harass.

Neither is the rest of the explanation in the complaint accepted. It is partial and one-sided. It has been made clear to WhatDoTheyKnow, in correspondence with them, the requester's preferred resolution of the matter. That correspondence will be disclosed to the ICO's caseworker once this complaint file is allocated.

Furthermore, the response to the complaint should be confined to the matters raised in that complaint - and not what has happened subsequently.

4. The explanation given in response to ground 1 e. is muddled, at best. More crucially, it fails to address the key point in issue: It has been made crystal clear to NYP CDU that if a finalisation of a request necessitates reference to personal data then such finalisation be posted to the WhatDoTheyKnow site, with that personal information redacted. That is what the requester's email of 26th September 2016 states and it remains his position.

5. The response given to grounds 2 to 10 c is unethical, and plainly ludicrous. The duty of any reviewer is to, firstly, disclose a rationale if it is to be relied upon in answering a complaint. That rationale is still absent. Secondly, in dealing with a complaint it is a guiding principle to carefully address each head of complaint. Particulary, as in this case they have been carefully set out to match up with the leading legal authority on the subject (Dransfield). Neither of those mechanisms have been triggered and the finalisation of this part of the internal review is, as such, a nullity.

6. It also goes to the evidence of the intention of the data controller to continue to vex annoy and harass the requester that an identical information request was sent to each of the other four forces that he, mainly, scrutinises as an investigative journalist. They are West Yorkshire Police, South Yorkshire Police, Greater Manchester Police and Lancashire Constabularly. All those requests were finalised satisfactorily and the correspondence trails for those requests are available to view on this website.

In summary, it is the overarching submission of the requester that the response to this internal review was carried out inappropriately, by an officer lacking the necessary independence; with ill-intent and with an outcome that is almost wholly misconceived under the requirements of the Act, ICO Guidance and Approved Professional Practice.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Dear Mr Wilby,

I write to acknowledge the receipt of your email.

Kind regards,

Robert Bates
Collar Number 5480
Legal Officer (Civil Disclosure)
North Yorkshire Police

Committed to the Code of Ethics
 
Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number. If using my collar number please state each number individually.
 
Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk
Facebook: www.facebook.com/NorthYorkshirePolice
Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYorksPolice

show quoted sections

Neil Wilby left an annotation ()

This complaint has finally been logged by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) under reference FS50708629.

After a series of increasingly far-fetched reasons not to investigate, the ICO finally admitted, after threat of legal action from me, that the complaint had been 'overlooked' - and will now be treated as a priority.

It took 377 days to reach that point (21st October, 2016 to 2nd November, 2017).

Little wonder public authorities, such as North Yorkshire Police, laugh in the face of the so-called statutory regulator.

Fryar, Liz, North Yorkshire Police

2 Attachments

Good morning,

 

Please see attached response to your request for information
(517.2016-17),

 

Kind Regards

 

Liz

 

Liz Fryar

Collar Number 4437

Legal Officer – Civil Disclosure

Joint Corporate Legal Services

North Yorkshire Police

 

Please note my normal working days are Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and
Friday.

 

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number.
If using my collar number please state each number individually.

 

[1]www.northyorkshire.police.uk

 

Committed to the Code of Ethics

 

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT
ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

 

From: Fryar, Liz
Sent: 05 December 2017 14:02
To: '[FOI #355934 email]'
Cc: '[email address]'
Subject: FOI response 517.2016-17 (reissue)

 

 

Good afternoon,

 

Please see attached response to your request for information
(517.2016-17),

 

Kind Regards

 

Liz

 

Liz Fryar

Collar Number 4437

Legal Officer – Civil Disclosure

Joint Corporate Legal Services

North Yorkshire Police

 

Please note my normal working days are Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and
Friday.

 

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number.
If using my collar number please state each number individually.

 

[2]www.northyorkshire.police.uk

 

Committed to the Code of Ethics

 

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT
ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

 

 

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/
2. http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/

Dear North Yorkshire Police ('NYP"),

Please pass this on to the person who conducts reviews of requests made under the Freedom of Information Act ("the Act"). The grounds for complaint are:

1. Disclosure of the requested information has taken 461 (FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY ONE) days. It is believed to be a record on the What Do They Know website.

2. That delay in disclosure, taken in the context of other non-compliant finalisations of information requests I have made to NYP, may well amount to 'seriously improper conduct', as defined in section 77 of the Act.
For example:
(i) Eight of my first nine requests to NYP were all finalised as non-compliant (URN’s 489.2015.16; 15.2015.16; 268.2015.16; 1117.2015.16; 1224.2015.16; 1225.2015.16; 198.2015.16; 305.2015.16).
(ii) Most of those requests at sub-para (i) above could safely be characterised as non-complex. Six of them were finalised months overdue, not days or weeks. 489.2015.16 took 377 (THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SEVEN) days to finalise.
(iii) A subsequent request was not finalised at all, and required a notice to be served on NYP by the ICO to force disclosure (URN 447.2016.17).
(iv) A further request (URN 499.2016.17) was finalised as vexatious. NYP later retreated from that position and disclosed the information in full, again following intervention by the ICO.
(v) Another request (URN 441.2016.17 ) is presently before the First Tier Tribunal ("the FTT") wherein the finalisation of the request, the internal review, submissions to the ICO's investigation and in legal pleadings there has been, throughout, a persistent and deliberate attempt to mislead me, the ICO and the Tribunal (those words are carefully chosen).
(vi) In yet another request, it took 450 days to provide a finalisation: 681.2017.18
(vii) Finally, NYP conspired with Durham Constabulary to produce one of the most grotesquely smearing finalisations of an information request in the 17 year history of the Act . The ICO, unsurprisingly, overturned the section 14 exemption applied to that request.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

3. This list at para 1 (i) to (vii) is not to be taken as exhaustive - and all other rights in respect of civil or criminal action are, accordingly, reserved.

4. In the fifth paragraph on page 2 of the finalisation letter you state:
“Decision
At the time of the original decision, particular factors engaged a Section 14 response, however, at this time, some of these factors are no longer present. I have therefore decided to disclose the located information to you”.

The following points are made in response:
(a) If the section 14 exemption is not unconditionally withdrawn, and a revised finalisation posted on this website to that effect, then the most proportionate option available to the various parties would be to ask the ICO to proceed with the present section 14 investigation, and issue a Decision Notice. In the unlikely event that the reliance on the section 14 exemption is upheld by the ICO, then it would be appealed to the FTT.
(b) You are, in the meantime, invited to disclose (i) The "particular factors considered when the original section 14 decision was made" and (ii) "some of those factors no longer present”.
(c) I herewith consent to personal data being disclosed on this website (What Do They Know) if the answer(s) to para 3 (b) (i) and (ii) necessitates such data being published. All my rights, on this single occasion, are, accordingly, waived.
(d) As carefully, and forensically, set out in eleven pages of submissions to the ICO investigation (3,549 words), the vexatious conduct is strictly confined to that of NYP towards me. A matter I have complained of, many times.
(e) In any event, and setting all that aside, any independent reviewer simply taking into account the matters set out above at para 1 (i) to (vii) could not, in all truth, reach any other conclusion than NYP are the vexing party in all this.
(f) The point is also made, politely but with appropriate force, that to finalise the instant request would have taken a disclosure officer, perhaps, one to two hours. Yet NYP have been content to waste hours of my time in trying to eke out disclosure of information that should, very arguably, be part of NYP's publication policy, in any event.

5. Notwithstanding the contentious matters raised at paras 1. 2. 3. and 4. above, I am, nonetheless, grateful for the disclosure provided. It is, as one might expect, an important piece in the jigsaw of a wider, and ongoing, investigation into NYP malpractice concerning the Act.

6. As an extension of that investigation, and further to some quite startling (and very probably untrue) assertions made by Fraser Sampson, chief executive to the police commissioner, at a recent Police and Crime Panel meeting, I request that an identical data set be disclosed for the period 1st September 2016 to 31st March, 2017
That is to say:
(i) How many FOIA requests were due for finalisation (within the statutory 20 working day period)?
(ii) How many were finalised in a compliant manner?
(iii) How many were non-compliant?
(iv) How many FOIA request internal reviews were due for finalisation (within the 20 working day period) ?
(v) How many were finalised in a compliant manner?
(vi) How many were non-compliant? That is to say still not finalised at 1st September, 2016.
Please provide in all cases:
(vii) The NYP FOI file reference for the request/internal review falling due for finalisation in the period between 1st July, 2016 and 1st September 2016.
(viii) The date the request, internal review was submitted to NYP.
(ix) The date the request, internal review was finalised by NYP.

I recognise that this will have to be treated as a new request but it would be rational and proportionate to contain it within this existing What Do They Know thread.

7. Given the delay in finalising this request and, also, the wider significance of the matters raised at paras 1 to 4, you are politely urged to expedite this internal review.

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

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Thank you for your email, please treat this as an acknowledgement of receipt.

Your email will be dealt with accordingly.

PLEASE NOTE: If your query is to address an urgent safeguarding concern then please redirect your enquiry to the Vulnerability Assessment Team on [email address]<mailto:[email address]>
The Vulnerability Assessment Team is available during office hours Monday to Friday.

Civil Disclosure Unit

Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk<http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/>

show quoted sections

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Good afternoon Mr Wilby

Thank you for your email.

Please accept this email as acknowledgement to your request for an internal review.

Kind regards

Sarah Saunders
Collar Number 4868
Administrative Assistant (Civil Disclosure)
Joint Corporate Legal Services
North Yorkshire Police HQ
Alverton Court
Crosby Road
Northallerton
North Yorkshire
DL6 1BF

Tel: 0160 9643526

DX 68810 Northallerton 2

Committed to the Code of Ethics
Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number. If using my collar number please state each number individually

Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk
Facebook: facebook.com/NorthYorkshirePolice
Twitter: twitter.com/NYorksPolice

show quoted sections

Dear Civil Disclosure,

To the surprise of no-one, it appears that you have not read the internal review request.

At para 6, it incorporates a new information request.

Please acknowledge that request and, preferably, confirm that it will be expedited.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Good morning Mr Wilby

Thank you for your email.

Your FOI request contained in the internal review was received on 7th November and has been logged. The reference number is 0967.2017-18.

Kind regards

Sarah Saunders
Collar Number 4868
Administrative Assistant (Civil Disclosure)
Joint Corporate Legal Services
North Yorkshire Police HQ
Alverton Court
Crosby Road
Northallerton
North Yorkshire
DL6 1BF

Tel: 0160 9643526

DX 68810 Northallerton 2

Committed to the Code of Ethics
Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number. If using my collar number please state each number individually

Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk
Facebook: facebook.com/NorthYorkshirePolice
Twitter: twitter.com/NYorksPolice

show quoted sections

Dear Civil Disclosure,

The new information request was made on 7th DECEMBER, 2017 and not, as stated in your last post on this thread, 7th November, 2017.

It is, however, ackowledged as being allocated the URN 0967.2017-18. Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Fryar, Liz, North Yorkshire Police

2 Attachments

Good afternoon,

 

Please see attached response to your request for information
(967.2017-18),

 

Kind Regards

 

Liz

 

Liz Fryar

Collar Number 4437

Legal Officer – Civil Disclosure

Joint Corporate Legal Services

North Yorkshire Police

 

Please note my normal working days are Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and
Friday.

 

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number.
If using my collar number please state each number individually.

 

[1]www.northyorkshire.police.uk

 

Committed to the Code of Ethics

 

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT
ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

 

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/

Bates, Robert, North Yorkshire Police

2 Attachments

Good afternoon,

Please find attached North Yorkshire Police's response to your second request for an internal review of FOI 0517.2016-17.

Kind regards,

Robert Bates
Collar Number 5480
Legal Officer (Civil Disclosure)
North Yorkshire Police

Committed to the Code of Ethics
 
Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number. If using my collar number please state each number individually.
 
Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk
Facebook: www.facebook.com/NorthYorkshirePolice
Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYorksPolice

show quoted sections

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Neil Wilby please sign in and let everyone know.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org