Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to know if the Metropolitan Police Service have any contracts with Northgate Information Solutions Plc and if so, the nature of any such contract, the value of any such contracts and the date upon which any such contracts were signed.

Yours faithfully,

Mr G Rydell

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Rydell

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008080001786
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 06/08/2008. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* I would like to know if the Metropolitan Police Service have any
contracts with Northgate Information Solutions Plc and if so, the
nature of any such contract, the value of any such contracts and the
date upon which any such contracts were signed.

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.

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

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest
in the MPS.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
write or contact Shannon Aldridge on telephone number 020 7161 3527
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Shannon Aldridge
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 and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within three months.
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

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

I note with some concern that you have not responded to my recent FOI request within the twenty working days you are allowed by law.

Your lack of response is unacceptable and I require an explanation of your conduct.

Yours sincerely,

Mr G V Rydell

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Rydell

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008080001786

I write in connection with your request for information dated 06/08/2008
which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 06/08/2008.
I note you seek access to the following information:

** I would like to know if the Metropolitan Police Service have any
contracts with Northgate Information Solutions Plc and if so, the nature
of any such contract, the value of any such contracts and the date upon
which any such contracts were signed.

I regret to inform you that the MPS have not been able to complete its
response to your request by the date originally stated.

I now advise you that the amended date for a response is 16/08/2008. I can
assure you that every effort will be made to ensure an appropriate
response will be made within this new timescale.

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

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused. Should you wish to discuss
this matter please write or contact Nick Morrison on telephone number 020
7091 5559 quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

Nick Morrison
Information Manager
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 and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within three months.
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 700Case reference: 2008080001786

Nicholas Morrison
Information Manager - Camden Borough Police
Tel: (020) 8733 6310
Fax: (020) 8733 6312

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Morrison,

You have stated that "I now advise you that the amended date for a response is 16/08/2008. I can assure you that every effort will be made to ensure an appropriate response will be made within this new timescale."

As most people will be aware, the 16/08/2008 was twenty days ago.

Furthermore, if additional time is needed, a public authority are still required to communicate this fact to the requester prior to the expiration of the twenty days allowed by law. I would like to know therefore, why I had to chase up your lack of response in the first instance and why I was not properly advised that you felt you needed additional time.

Kindly provide a date - preferably in the future - upon which a response will be provided.

Yours sincerely,

Mr G V Rydell

Dear Mr Morrison,

Your continued lack of response is not appropriate.

Kindly address yourself to the question raised in my previous post.

Yours sincerely,

Mr G V Rydell

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Rydell,

Once again, my apologises in the delay to this request. The reason for the delay is that, while the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Directorate of Resources (DoR) primarily deal with the management of contracts with 3rd party service providers, Purchase Orders for services can also be placed remotely against these contracts.

As such, in order for me to fully investigate any orders placed, I need to approach numerous units and individuals to ensure that I can supply you with a full and complete response (subject to any exemption).

While I appreciate we have exceeded the deadline, as stated in your recent email, I hope you can appreciate that when dealing with FOIA requests on behalf of an organisation the size of the MPS, there are instances when we need to take longer than the deadline to ensure we provide the applicant with the requested information.

Once again, I apologise for the delay in responding to your request, and endeavour to have a response to you as soon as possible.

Kind Regards,

Nick Morrison
Information Management Business Change
1st Floor West, Edinburgh House
Tel - 020 7091 (78)5559
Mob - 07917 517 258
Not Protectively Marked
P please only print this e-mail if absolutely necessary

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Morrison,

In your most recent reply, you have advised me that you will respond "as soon as possible".

Whilst I accept to an extent your contention that due to the size of the MPS, retrieving all the information may have necessitated longer than the twenty days prescribed in law. I do not accept that after a further six weeks you still cannot provide me with a response or a date upon which a response will be issued.

Therefore I must ask that you advise me of a definitive date upon which you will issue a response to my request which is now significantly overdue.

Should I not hear from you with a definitive date by the 14th October 2008, I will submit a complaint under Section 50 of the FOI Act 2000 to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

George Rydell

George Rydell left an annotation ()

I submitted a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office regarding this request on the 16th October 2008 and have today received the following response:

4th November 2008

Case Reference Number FS50218556

Dear Mr Rydell

Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Thank you for your correspondence dated 16 October 2008 in which you complain about the lack of a full response to your request from MPS.

I have spoken to Mr Morrison at MPS who advises me that he sent you a notice advising that full response to your request would be delayed because of the need to conclude a public interest test (PIT) in respect of a qualified exemption, that being Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We do not have a copy of that document

So we can progress your complaint we need you to provide a copy of the following:

MPS’ notice in which it advised you that it will need more time to conclude the PIT because of the possible application of Section 43

Your case has now been closed as there is no further action we are able to take without the documents we have requested. We require these documents as it provides us with a full set of unedited evidence in support of the complaint.

Once we receive the information we have requested your complaint can be reopened.

Please quote the reference number from the top of this message in any further correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

Bernard McNally
FoI Case Reception Unit
The information Commissioner’s Office

As can clearly be seen by anyone reading the above thread, that nowhere within it does Mr Morrison make reference to a Section 43 exemption being engaged nor does he state that there is any need to consider the public interest test.

As Mr Morrison and the MPS do not have and have never been supplied with any contact details for me other than those through WhatDoTheyKnow.com, they cannot claim to have sent the request to me either by private e-mail or post.

Therefore, it is clear that Mr Morrison has deliberately lied to the Information Commissioner's Office.

I have today sent a complaint against Mr Morrison to Stuart Osborne the Director of the Metropolitan Police's Professional Standards Department because of that lie and have also advised Mr McNally at the Information Commissioner's Office that I have never received any correspondence from the MPS other than that posted in this thread.

I will keep readers publicly informed of any developments in relation to both aspects of this case.

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Rydell

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008080001786

Sincere apologies for the length of time taken to reply and inconvenience
this may have caused. However, in connection with your request for
information dated 06/08/2008 which was received by the Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS) on 06/08/2008. I note you seek access to the following
information:

· I would like to know if the Metropolitan Police Service have any
contracts with Northgate Information Solutions Plc and if so, the nature
of any such contract, the value of any such contracts and the date upon
which any such contracts were signed.

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS
to locate information relevant to your request. I can confirm that the
information you have requested is held by the MPS.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the MPS Directorate of Information (DoI) and Directorate of
Resources (DoR)

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located 10 records relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose records numbered 1 to 10, subject to the
deletion of information pursuant to the provisions of section 43 of the
Freedom of Information 2000 (the Act)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 43 of the Act states:

Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 exempts information if
it constitutes a trade secret or information the disclosure of which
would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any
person, including those of the public authority holding the information.
43(1) Information is exempt information if it constitutes a trade secret.
43(2) Information is exempt information 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).

43(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent
that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to,
prejudice the interests mentioned in subsection (2).

I have applied this exemption as the specific nature of the request, being
financial, could violate section 43(2), as highlighted in below Evidence
of Harm and Public Interest Test.

Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have
considered the potential HARM that could be caused by disclosure:

The major factor when considering any potential harm in the release of
financial information is any damage which can be caused to the working
relationship between the MPS and our service providers, and to the service
providers themselves. Should the information be released, this could
possibly lead to competitors to the service providers having full
knowledge of existing contracts, outside of contracts being out to tender,
which would put any competitors at an unfair advantage.

In addition to the above, due to the nature of support provided to the MPS
by the service provider, namely integral and secure systems development,
release of financial information in relation to this service, may suggest
to the general public that these amounts are the only amounts the MPS
spends on its integral and secure systems, which may lead to public
unrest.

Public Interest Test

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

The main factor favouring disclosure is, in the spirit of the Act,
openness and transparency of the conduct of government agencies. There is
an interest in the financial activities of all government agencies, and
increased public concern of how money is spent by these agencies.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

While the above can be seen as strong case for disclosure, due to the
nature of these contracts, consideration needs to be given to the public
perception of these contracts, and to the commercial interests of the
service providers themselves. Release of this information could lead to
public unrest concerning the investment made by the MPS into integral and
secure systems, as the information relating to this request does not paint
a full picture of investment.

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.
I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
disclosed does not outweigh disclosing information relating to financial
contract information with the service provider.

Please find attached your copies of records number 1 to 10, summarised
into the attached document detailing nature of contracts and systems they
relate to.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Nick Morrison on telephone number 020 7091 5559 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Nick Morrison
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 and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within three months.
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 700Case reference: 2008080001786

Nicholas Morrison
Information Manager - Camden Borough Police
Tel: (020) 8733 6310
Fax: (020) 8733 6312

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

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 'Northgate Contracts'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/no...

I am specifically concerned with the length of time it took you to respond with such limited information and the fact that Mr Morrison deliberately lied to the Information Commissioner's Office when they contacted him about the delay.

Yours sincerely,

George Rydell

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Rydell

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009010002614

I write in connection with your letter dated 13 January 2009 requesting
that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response dated 14
November 2008 to your request for information relating to:

* Original FOI case number: 2008080001786

The review will be conducted in accordance to the MPS's complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 10 March
2009.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact Sarah Pallen on telephone number 020 71613604 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

Sarah Pallen
Freedom of Information Policy, Research, Review 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 and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 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

show quoted sections

Dear Miss Pallen,

Thank you for your acknowledgement of my request for internal review.

You mention in your response that should I have any further inquiries...I should contact you.

As you will see from the thread of correspondence, I stated that I had submitted a formal written complaint to Commander Osborne of CIB. I have not had any acknowledgement of that complaint or response to it from Commander Osborne or anyone else.

Perhaps you could convey a message to Commander Osborne? The message being that if I do not receive a formal acknowledgement of my complaint within the next seven days, I will submit a complaint directly to the IPCC against Commander Osborne for refusing to respond to a formal complaint from a member of the public.

Yours sincerely,

G V Rydell

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Rydell

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009010002614

Further to our letter of 15 January 2009, I am now able to provide a
response to your complaint dated 13 January 2009 concerning:

* Original FOI case number 2008080001786

This letter is in response to your request for an internal review of
Metropolitan Police Service's (MPS) handling of your request. As
requested, this review has focused specifically on the length of time it
took to respond to your request.

You have also requested this review focus on the information Mr Morrison
provided to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) by telephone when
they contacted him about the delay in responding to your request.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided that the incorrect procedure was followed in reaching our original
decision.

REASON FOR DECISION

Your request was received by the MPS on 6th August 2008. Your response was
therefore due on the 4 September 2008. It was not until the 5 September
2008 that an update on the status of your case was sent to you by email.
As the MPS would be considering the public interest test in regards to the
disclosure of the requested information, I find two administrative errors
and breaches of the Act occurred.

Firstly you should have been clearly informed that the deadline for your
request had to be extended to consider the public interest test. This
letter should have included a Section 17 refusal notice indicating that
the MPS had not yet reached a decision as to the application of Section
43(2) to fully or partially exempt the requested information. It should
also have contained an estimate of the date by which the MPS expected that
such a decision will have been reached.

It is regrettable that there was therefore a breach of section 17(1)(b)
and (c) of the Act, as the MPS failed to state in its refusal notice that
it believed that sections 43(2) was applicable to the information
requested information, with an explanation of why it applied.

I also take this opportunity to apologise that this refusal notice was not
provided to you within the 20 working days following the date of receipt
of your request.

I therefore apologise for this breach of section 10(1) of the Act,
particularly as the MPS did not provide the requested information within
the statutory 20 working days. As you have now received a final response
to your request, we will not need to take any further action.

I would now like to turn to the second part of your complaint, which
requests this review focus on the information Mr Morrison provided to the
ICO by telephone when they contacted him about the delay. Unfortunately
this part of your complaint cannot be dealt with within the remit of this
review as I am only able to assist in terms of reviewing whether the MPS
has complied with the Act.

I would like to take this opportunity to assure you processes are in place
to assist in the training and development of MPS FOI practitioners.
Organised FOI conference days, ACPO FOI training days and mandatory FOI
computer-based learning packages, are examples of the MPS initiative to
ensure staff are fully skilled in handling FOI requests.

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 do
not hesitate to contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Pallen
Freedom of Information Policy, Research, Review 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 and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 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

show quoted sections

George Rydell left an annotation ()

I promised to keep readers informed as to the outcome of the formal complaint made to the Metropolitan Police Service in relation to this request and I apologise for not having done so sooner.

The Metropolitan Police Service's formal response to the complaint is reproduced below:

Dear Mr Rydell,

The outcome of your complaint against Mr Morrison made on 23rd November 2008

Please let me start by thanking you for your co-operation during my investigation.

My enquiries are now complete and you will see that I have enclosed a copy of my final report for you to read and keep.

You’ll find my conclusions in section C.

Some confidential details may have been deleted from this copy of my report – for instance, the home addresses of witnesses, or personal data that is held on police records. However, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has the power to inspect any and all information that was in my report, if that should be necessary.

You have the right of appeal in relation to this investigation to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). You have 28 days within which to make your appeal to the IPCC. You are advised to post your appeal in good time to ensure it reaches the IPCC before the end of the 28th day. The 28th day is 13/04/2009 Appeals received after 28 days may not be allowed unless there are exceptional circumstances.

You might want to consider using guaranteed next-day delivery post service to ensure that your appeal is received within time.

I enclose the IPCC’s leaflet that explains exactly how to go about lodging an appeal. You will see that you can appeal on any one of the following grounds:

• That you have not been given adequate information about the investigation now that it is complete
• That you have reasons to disagree with the findings of the investigation
• That you have reasons to disagree with the action proposed as a result of our investigation

Thank you again for raising a most important issue with us. I am only sorry that anyone working with the Metropolitan Police Service should have given you cause for concern, but you have my assurance that we are wholeheartedly committed to resolving all the points you made to us.

Yours sincerely,

Jacqueline Busette

George Rydell left an annotation ()

The investigating officer's report is a PDF file containing five sections. Due to the formatting of that report, it is difficult to copy and paste the contents as an annotation here.

Section B of the report details the allegations and Section C the conclusion and recommendations. I have copied both below:

B. Details of investigation of allegation(s)

The complaint was logged because Mr Morrison a member of police staff sent out the wrong letter to Mr Rydell in regards to an FOI request he had made. Mr Rydell the complainant, was awaiting a response from Mr Morrison in regards to an FOI request he had made to the MPS. Mr Rydell was dissatisfied with the service he received from Mr Morrison and pointed out that he was given wrong information. Mr Rydell then made a complaint to the Directorate of Professional Standards outlining his concerns that Mr Morrison had lied about information he had sent to Mr Rydell.

I was appointed as Investigating Officer on 08/01/09 to deal with the complaint.

I read all the paperwork in connection with the FOI request which subsequently lead to the complaint from Mr Rydell. I accessed the website Mr Rydell is using to log his correspondence with the MPS in regards to this case.

An acknowledgment letter was sent out to Mr Rydell on 14/01/09 informing Mr Rydell that I was dealing with the complaint.

Mr Rydell acknowledged receipt of the letter and made it clear he was dissatisfied with the following:
* The time it was taking for his FOI request to be dealt with.
* Mr Morrison had lied to the ICO.

As part of my investigating, I completed a fact finding interview with the subject, Mr Nicholas Morrison, in relation to the allegations made by Mr Rydell.

As a result of this meeting, Mr Morrison informed me that he was in communication with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and informed Mr McNally of the ICO, that there would be a delay to your request, due to the need for a public interest test (PIT) in respect of a qualified exemption, Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It transpires that this documentation was not sent out to you.

Mr Morrison recognises that he made an error in not sending you information about a PIT being carried out. This was an oversight on Mr Morrison’s part and he takes full responsibility for this mistake. Having spoken to Mr Morrison I am satisfied that he did not purposely set out to lie or to deceive the ICO or yourself.

C. Conclusions and Recommendations

(1) Discussion of the Evidence and Conclusions

I have come to the conclusion that Mr Morrison made a genuine mistake in believing he had sent you the information stated above. I have advised Mr Morrison of the seriousness of the error and am satisfied that he understands the statutory obligation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Mr Morrison has asked that I pass his sincere apologies to you. Mr Morrison will not be subject to police staff discipline, however I have spoken with the Public Access Office and they have assured me that improvements are in the process of being made.

Criminal Allegations

Misconduct Allegations

Integrity of police staff member Nicholas Morrison when dealing with an FOI request and the time taken to complete the FOI request.

Gross Misconduct Allegations

(2) Disposal Considerations

As mentioned in Section C1, Mr Morrison has recognised his mistake and I have reminded him of his responsibilites when dealing with Freedom of Information requests in the future.

Should anyone want the full PDF file, please send me a message through this website and I will e-mail you a copy by return.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org