Dear Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council,

Could you please provide me with any correspondence and details you hold between the council, or individual councillors, and the owners, past and present, of Chelsea Football Club in relation to altering the current planning constraints on Stamford Bridge

Yours faithfully,

Harry Raffal

Dear Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Planning permission Stamford Bridge'.

My request for information made under the freedom of information act has not been responded to within the legal time limit. I am therefore requesting an internal review. Please note you are still obliged to provide me with the information requested. If you could provide me with a reference number for the internal review I would be most grateful.

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

Yours faithfully,

Harry Raffal

iCasework, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Hammersmith & Fulham - Complaint - Information Management Team

Our reference: 306333

Dear Mr. Raffal

Complaint - Information Management Team

I must apologise for the delay in acknowledging your email received 24
November 2010. This is being treated as a complaint with regards to case
ref. 299005 and has been passed to the Information Manager, Ciara Shimidzu
who will investigate the reason why the response was delayed.

You will receive a response by 14 December 2010.

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Alison Ross-Dow

Senior Information Management Officer

Ciara Shimidzu, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Dear Mr. Raffal,

306333: complaint on request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA 2000) - case 299005

Thank you for your complaint received by email on 24 November 2010. I have
now investigated the issues you brought to my attention. I hope the
explanation below is sufficient to address the issue you raise.

Your complaint

"I am writing to request an internal review of Hammersmith and Fulham
Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Planning permission Stamford
Bridge'.

My request for information made under the freedom of information act has
not been responded to within the legal time limit. I am therefore
requesting an internal review. Please note you are still obliged to
provide me with the information requested. If you could provide me with a
reference number for the internal review I would be most grateful."

This response will address the time delay incurred with your request for
information (RFI). This is being handled as a complaint and not an
internal review which can only be carried out after the response has been
sent out. The turnover time is 15 working days.

Cause of complaint

Your request for information, case 299005, was received by the Council on
26 September 2010 with a due date of 23 November 2010. On 18 November
2010, my colleague Alison Ross-Dow responded to you requesting
clarification of your request (email produced below in italics). To date
we have yet to receive this from you. This email was sent to both a
`whatdotheyknow.com' address and your email address
'[email address]' and was entitled `Request for Clarification':

"Dear Mr Raffal

Request for information 299005

Following my email to you yesterday summarising your cases with the
council, I have been informed by a service area that we require
clarification on this request in order to process it.

"Could you please provide me with any correspondence and details you hold
between the council, or individual councillors, and the owners, past and
present, of Chelsea Football Club in relation to altering the current
planning constraints on Stamford Bridge?"

This is a very wide ranging request which may require searching across
more than one database to find relevant data. If you could define a
particular time period e.g. last 6 months to search we may be able to
identify applicable databases in which to focus our efforts. In addition
to can you please define what you mean by "altering the current planning
constraints"? Are you referring to controls/restrictions imposed by
planning conditions and/or Legal Agreements attached to existing planning
permissions?

Once we receive this clarification from you we will be able to process
your request. If we do not hear from you within 3 calendar months your
request will be closed.

Yours sincerely

Alison Ross-Dow"

Section 1(3) of the FOIA 2000 states that a public authority is not
obliged to comply with a request if:

* it reasonably requires further information before it can identify
and locate the information requested; and
* it has asked the applicant for this further information.

In this case, the authority does not need to comply until or unless it has
received a response which sufficiently clarifies the request.

As we have not yet received this clarification from you, we have been
unable to continue to process your request and therefore have been under
no duty to comply.

However, should you provide the clarification required, we will be happy
to resume processing your request for information. Please note that the
deadline for providing this response is 18 February 2010.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries
regarding this complaint or if you require any further assistance with
your original request.

Yours sincerely,

Ciara Shimidzu

Information Manager

Tel: 020 8753 3895

Email:

[1][email address]

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Ciara Shimidzu, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Dear Mr. Raffal,

306335: complaint on request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 - case 299010

Thank you for your complaint received by email on 24 November 2010. I have
now investigated the issues you brought to my attention. I hope the
explanation and remedial actions below are sufficient.

Your complaint

This response will address the time delay incurred with your request for
information (RFI). This is being handled as a complaint and not an
internal review which can only be carried out after the response has been
sent out. The turnover time is 15 working days.

Cause of complaint

Your RFI, case 299010, was received by the Council on 26 October 2010 with
a due date of 23 November 2010. A final response was sent to out to you on
25 November 2010. It took 22 working days to respond to this request,
exceeding the statutory time limit of 20 working days under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 by an additional 2 working days.

This delay is unsatisfactory and a breach of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000.

Reasons for delay

Please find below the chronology of your case followed by an explanation
of the reasons for the delay:

* 26 October 2010 - the council receives your RFI, logs as case
299010 and forwards the case to the Information Management Team
(IMT) for processing.
* 27 October 2010 - a formal acknowledgement is sent to you and
the IMT assigns tasks to Resident Services with a deadline of 3
November to collect the information required for the response.
* 10 November 2010 - the Parks and Recreation team responds,
stating that they do not hold information relating to the
request.
* 19 November 2010 - the Emergency Services Team responds to the
IMT, stating that they do not hold the information either and
that the request needs to go to the Environment Services
Department; IMT assigns task to PPS with deadline of 24 November
2010.
* 22 November 2010 - IMT write to you informing you that your
request will go overdue.
* 23 November 2010 - IMT receive your complaint.
* 25 November 2010 - the information is provided by the
Environment Services Department, IMT sends out final response to
you.

The reasons for the delay were:

* The Emergency Services Team did not reply in a timely fashion;
and

* The Environment Services Department did not provide the
information before the statutory deadline.

This is again unsatisfactory. Please accept my apologies for the delay and
any inconvenience caused.

Remedial actions

To prevent of the above errors and poor practice from happening again, the
following actions are underway:

* Lunchtime briefing sessions by IMT are available to all staff.
These provide information regarding the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 plus
a walk-through/question and answer session on the RFI system,
iCasework.
* New user guide - the IMT have just drafted new guidance for
officers' assigned RFI tasks and this is now available on the
Council intranet and regularly circulated to officers dealing
with requests for information.
* Revised internal request handling procedures - the IMT have
further tightened the internal and departmental procedures which
were approved by the Council's Executive Management Team last
month. These tighter measures include: a 24-48 hour deadline for
logging all requests in the h&f InTouch Team, a 5 working day
time limit for officers in the departments to complete their
allocated tasks assisting with an RFI; and all overdue requests
are escalated by the Information Manager directly to the officer
concerned and their Assistant Director or equivalent.

I hope the above provides you with a sufficient explanation of how your
request was handled, reassurance that the errors cited are being addressed
and an apology for any inconvenience caused.

As you have now received a response to your request, if you are
dissatisfied with it you are entitled to request me to undertake an
internal review. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
further queries regarding this complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Ciara Shimidzu

Information Manager

Tel: 020 8753 3895

Email: [1][email address]

"I am writing to request an internal review of Hammersmith and Fulham
Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'evacaution time of Sports
venues in Hammersmith and Fulham'.

My request for information made under the freedom of information act has
not been responded to within the legal time limit. I am therefore
requesting an internal review. Please note you are still obliged to
provide me with the information requested. If you could provide me with a
reference number for the internal review I would be most grateful."

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Ciara Shimidzu,

I have received two messages from you in regard to this FoI request. One refers to a different request and should be posted there. I have contacted the council regarding this matter and informed you that I have a recognised mental disability that makes posting in the manner you have done both confusing and distressing. I would appreciate knowing why having been assured that the council procedure of bombarding one feed with requests this has still not been rectified.

Furthermore in your first reply you state that I have been asked to clarify my request. I suggest you view my request on whatdotheyknow.com and attempt to find this clarification. To the best of my knowledge I have not received it either in the appropriate request or elsewhere. This being the case I request you conduct an internal review as to how this situation has occurred. I assume that this is not a fraudulent attempt to avoid a breach of the deadline and that being so this clarifaction request must have encountered an error, I would appreciate knowing what that error was. I would also appreciate you colleague resending the clarifaction request to this feed so that I can act upon it.
Finally I would be obliged if you only responded to me via the whatdotheyknow.com site process, my spam filter regularly blocks unknown correspondence and I find it far easier to comprehend relevant responses and data when they are in the format allowed via this site.
Thank you for your time

Yours sincerely,

Harry Raffal

donotrespond, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Dear resident,

You can now open your own council online account at www.lbhf.gov.uk/myaccount

A ground-breaking 'My account' section on our website enables you to:
* view your council tax, benefit claim and parking permit details
* renew your parking permits (if you have received a letter from us about this)
* set up or amend a direct debit for your council tax
* apply for certain council tax discounts and exemptions if you are eligible
* report graffiti, noise, an abandoned vehicle or some other problem (you can still report these without logging in, but if you open an account you can see a history of the incidents that you report*
* get licensing and planning email alerts.
* get our weekly neighbourhood news alerts by subscribing at www.lbhf.gov.uk/newsalerts<http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/newsalerts> for everything from parking consultations, road closures and major planning applications to changes to your bin collections, school term dates and local event

You have received this email because you have previously used an 'e-form' on the H&F website using this email address, and we thought you'd like to know about this important change.

If you registered, your old username and password will no longer be active. So please go to http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/myaccount and create an account now to take advantage of these great new features.

Every time you use the website instead of calling, emailing or coming to see us in person, you help us to reduce costs, keep council tax bills down and protect spending on vital front line services.

When you use 'My Account' for Benefits, Council Tax or Permits please make sure you have papers with the relevant numbers as you will need these to access your records.

Please note that replies to this email will not be monitored. If you have any question about this service, please visit the website for help and further details.

Dear Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council,

It has been some time since I asked you to take action on errors made by the council in regard to this FoI request. i have received no confirmation of receipt or an outline of the action the council will take in regard to the matter. I think it is shocking that the council has therefor decided to send junk mail to this feed and would appreciate a response to my previous message and an outline as to the deficient decision making process that allowed a random unsolicited message to be sent to an FoI request.

Yours faithfully,

Harry Raffal

Kwame Opoku left an annotation ()

Good FOI question, and amply justified follow-up.

Jon Hill, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

1 Attachment

Hammersmith & Fulham - Information request - Information Management Team

Our reference: 299005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Raffal,
Further to my earlier email communication to you, please see a copy of the
clarification email sent to you by Alison Ross-Dow on 18/11/2010 to which
we have yet to receive a response. Please note that if we do not receive
clarification from you by 18/02/2011 the Act permits us to close the case.

"Request for information 299005

Following my email to you yesterday summarising your cases with the
council, I have been informed by a service area that we require
clarification on this request in order to process it.

"Could you please provide me with any correspondence and details you hold
between the council, or individual councillors, and the owners, past and
present, of Chelsea Football Club in relation to altering the current
planning constraints on Stamford Bridge?"

This is a very wide ranging request which may require searching across
more than one database to find relevant data. If you could define a
particular time period e.g. last 6 months to search we may be able to
identify applicable databases in which to focus our efforts. In addition
to can you please define what you mean by "altering the current planning
constraints"? Are you referring to controls/restrictions imposed by
planning conditions and/or Legal Agreements attached to existing planning
permissions?

Once we receive this clarification from you we will be able to process
your request. If we do not hear from you within 3 calendar months your
request will be closed."

Yours sincerely

Ciara Shimidzu
Information Manager
[email address]

Dear Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council,

Firstly let me thank you for having resolved the difficulties in providing the appropriate response to the correct request.

Your response in this instance to suggest that you have not breached a deadline is rather vexing. I have at no point that I can identify received this clarification until you mentioned it in a message on the 14 December 2010. I have previously informed the council that my personal email address has a high spam filter and that it should NOT be used to contact me with. I have trawled my personal email account and found no record of having received an email from you on 11 November 2010. In searching my whatdotheyknow.com feeds I cannot identify this clarification. In your recent response you merely state again it was sent but in my previous message to you I asked you to identify where on whatdotheyknow.com this clarification was and if you could not find it to discuss what error had produced this situation.

As to the clarification I can confirm I am interested in the control or restrictions being altered, This would include legal agreements where they imposed specific restrictions on development. I am interested in as wider time frame as possible within the financial limits set out by the Freedom of Information Act. Should you fear cost is an issue then please inform of the extent and I will be happy to discuss reducing the scope and making a new request if warranted for a different time period.

finally your review did not address why an unsolicited email sent by the council ended up in this feed.

Please confirm that you will:
Resume this FoI request now clarification has been provided.
Identify and link where the original clarification message was sent to on whatdotheyknow.com. (As this has always been the method by which I have corresponded with the council and I have previously informed you that I cannot be reasonably expected to receive emails from you to my personal email address then without this message the council will have failed in its obligations under the FoI Act)
Acting upon my request on the 27 December 2010 regarding the Junk mail sent to this feed.

My apologies for the length of this message.

Yours sincerely,

Harry Raffal

Shimidzu Ciara, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Dear Mr. Raffal,
Thank you for your prompt response.

I am glad that my earlier email did clarify the issues you have experienced as this was it's sole intention. You will receive formal responses to both your complaint and internal review in due course which will provide details and apologies for any delays and inconvenience caused. Unfortunately, I am unable to further this today but will address this week, as stated in my earlier email.

Thank you for your ongoing patience with this matter.
Kind regards...

Ciara Shimidzu - Information Manager
Finance and Corporate Services
3rd Floor - SmartSpace, Hammersmith Town Hall
Tel. ext. 3895
BlackBerry: 07795 208032

show quoted sections

Jon Hill, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Hammersmith & Fulham - Information request - Information Management Team

Our reference: 299005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Raffal

Thank you for your email, received Monday 17 January. Unfortunately the
H&F request management system has not been working for most of this
afternoon and I have only just been able to access this case. As a
result, I will send you a response to each of the issues you raised on
Monday 24 January.

However, in the interim, please be reassured that we have received your
clarification and re-opened your case. The statutory due date for a full
response is Thursday 27 January.

Yours sincerely

Ciara Shimidzu
Information Manager
[1][email address]

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Jon Hill, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

1 Attachment

Hammersmith & Fulham - Information request - Information Management Team

Our reference: 299005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Raffal,

299005: response to clarification on request for information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000

Thank you for your clarification response received by email on 17 January
2011. I have now investigated the issues you brought to my attention. I
hope the explanation and remedial actions below are sufficient.

I will deal with each element of your complaint and have placed your
comments in italics.

"Firstly let me thank you for having resolved the difficulties in
providing the appropriate response to the correct request."

Since my last communication to you, dated 17 January 2011, I can confirm
that I have resolved the problem the LBHF (H&F) request for information
(RFI) system (iCasework) faces in the management of multiple RFIs, each
with a dedicated email address but sent by one requestor. In the main,
this occurs with RFIs sent via the [1]www.WhatDoTheyKnow.com website.
From now on, the iCasework logging team will create a new set of contact
details for each request received from this website. This will ensure
that all subsequent communication between H&F and the requestor uses the
same unique email address created by the website. Although this will
result in a duplication of contact email addresses for those requestors
who submit more than one RFI, I am of the view that this is worthwhile in
H&F's efforts to maintain a good customer service. I can only apologise
for the delay in resolving this issue but this has been caused by
prolonged, staff absence within my team.

"Your response in this instance to suggest that you have not breached a
deadline is rather vexing. I have at no point that I can identify received
this clarification until you mentioned it in a message on the 14 December
2010. I have previously informed the
council that my personal email address has a high spam filter and that it
should NOT be used to contact me with. I have trawled my personal email
account and found no record of having received an email from you on 11
November 2010. In searching my
whatdotheyknow.com feeds I cannot identify this clarification. In your
recent response you merely state again it was sent but in my previous
message to you I asked you to identify where on whatdotheyknow.com this
clarification was and if you could not find it to discuss what error had
produced this situation."

With regards to breaching a "deadline", strictly speaking H&F have not
breached a deadline as we only received clarification for this request
last week and updated the case notes accordingly which has resulted in a
statutory due date of Thursday 27 January 2011. However I do recognise
that the communication between yourself and H&F on this issue has been
very confusing with the clarification being sent to the wrong email
address as a result of the problems encountered on iCasework by multiple
RFIs each with a dedicated email address but all from one requestor. I do
apologise if you have found this "vexing" and hope the above resolution is
satisfactory in preventing this in the future.

I can confirm that clarification was sought from you by Alison Ross-Dow on
18 November 2010 but was sent to the following email addresses:

+ [2][email address]
+ [3][email address]

Ms. Ross-Dow sent it to your personal address to ensure you received it as
she had noticed that there were some communication issues being
experienced between H&F and yourself but had not discovered the exact
problem. I do apologise if this contravened your express wish to not be
contacted on this address but I can confirm Ms. Ross-Dow was just trying
to ensure you received the clarification. My team will not use this
address in the future.

"As to the clarification I can confirm I am interested in the control or
restrictions being altered, this would include legal agreements where they
imposed specific restrictions on development. I am interested in as wider
time frame as possible within the financial limits set out by the Freedom
of Information Act. Should you fear cost is an issue then please inform of
the extent and I will be happy to discuss reducing the scope and making a
new request if warranted for a different time period."

Thank you for clarifying your request. I have restarted the clock on case
299005 and the statutory due date is Thursday 27 January. Please note
that H&F does not charge for any RFI made under the Freedom of Information
Act, even those requests that exceed the time limits of 18 hours. H&F's
policy is to refuse such requests and provide the requestor with all the
necessary assistance to bring their request to within the 18 hours.
However, to assist with this case, my team will find out exactly how many
emails are involved and will then be in a position to gauge how long it
will take to extract the requested information. If this does indeed take
us beyond the 18 hours, then they will contact you for a further steer as
to how we can bring your request to within the time/cost limits. I hope
this is satisfactory.

"finally your review did not address why an unsolicited email sent
by the council ended up in this feed."

Further to reading the unsolicited email in your WhatDoTheyKnow.com email
feed, I have contacted the team concerned for an explanation. On the face
of it, the only explanation I can think of is that the council's website
uses the same forms as that for iCasework but I will investigate further
and get back to you.

"Please confirm that you will:
Resume this FoI request now clarification has been provided. Identify and
link where the original clarification message was sent to on
whatdotheyknow.com. (As this has always been the method by which I have
corresponded with the council and I have previously informed you that I
cannot be reasonably expected to receive emails from you to my personal
email address then without this message the council will have failed in
its obligations under the FoI Act) Acting upon my request on the 27
December 2010 regarding the Junk mail sent to this feed."

As stated above, I have restarted the clock on this case, identified the
email feed that the clarification email was sent to, forwarded the
relevant communications to the correct email feeds and agreed to not use
your personal email address any more. We have also resolved the problem
of processing multiple RFIs with dedicated email addresses from one
requestor.

Again, please accept my apologies for the previous confusion and delays to
making progress against those cases affected. I hope the above
explanations and resolutions are satisfactory.

Yours sincerely,

Ciara Shimidzu

Information Manager

Tel: 020 8753 3895

Email: [4][email address]

References

Visible links
1. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[email address]

Dear Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council,

Thank you for your recent email and the information provided in it.

In regards to the clarification you should know that I cannot see which email addresses you have listed due to the manner in which whatdotheyknow.com filters out email addresses. Would you please provide the title and reference number of the freedom of information request hosted on whatdotheyknow.com which this clarification was sent to.

Until I have this information I cannot accurately gauge whether or not I could reasonably be assumed to have received the clarification (Having used my personal email address would not have given you this assumption as your office had already been made aware of the issues surrounding its use) Please forgive me if this inconveniences you in any way.

Yours sincerely,

Harry Raffal

Jon Hill, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Dear Mr. Raffal

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

We write regarding your request for information about planning constraints
on Stamford Bridge, received on 26 October 2010 and clarified on 21
January 2011.

It is with regret that we have been unable to complete our response within
the 20 working-days as required by the Environmental Information
Regulations. This is because we require an extension under the Regulations
due to the complexity and scale of the work involved. The Regulations
allow for an extension of up to 20 additional working days to requests
where the process of accessing, retrieving and supplying the information
will be complex, and the amount of work required voluminous.

Please be assured that we are dealing with your request as matter of
urgency and we hope to provide you with a final response by 23 February
2010.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Yours sincerely

Jon Hill
Senior Information Management Officer
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
Information Management Team/Finance & Corporate Services
3rd Floor Smartspace
Hammersmith Town Hall
King Street
London W6 9JU
DL: 020 8753 5865

www.lbhf.gov.uk

Director of Finance & Corporate Services: Jane West

Dear Jon Hill,

Thank you for your most recent message. I of course appreciate that certain complexities have obliged you to extend the deadline. However, I would be grateful to know why the council is now dealing with this request as a request under the Environmental Information Regulations. I'm sure there are pertinent reasons for doing so but surely they must have been apparent at the outset of this request and I should surely have been notified then that this is how my request would be processed.
Furthermore, I have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation as to where the original clarification message for this request was sent to. I have informed your department that I have at no point received this clarification to my personal email address and I am unable to find it in any of my request on whatdotheyknow.com. A One of your colleagues has attempted to provide the whatdotheyknow.com email address it was sent to but the formatting of the site does not allow me to view it correctly. If you could provide me the title and reference number for the feed you believe this clarification was sent to I would be most grateful.

Yours sincerely,

Harry Raffal

Jon Hill, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Dear Mr Raffal

Thank you for your request received on 26th October 2010 and due 23rd
February 2011. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide you with a full
response today. The delay has been caused by the volume of information
that has been retrieved to answer your request, all of which needs to be
reviewed to extract the relevant information to answer your questions.
This is taking longer than the stipulated 40 working day limit under the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Please accept my apologies for
any inconvenience caused by this delay.

I have agreed with the department concerned that the information you
requested will now be provided to you by 2nd March 2011.

If you have any queries please contact me immediately.

Yours sincerely

Joe Norman

Information Management Officer

Procurement and IT Strategy

SmartSpace 3rd floor

Hammersmith Town Hall

King Street, London W6 9JU

Hammersmith & Fulham Council

Ext: 020 8753 7189

Email: [email address]

Director of Finance & Corporate Services: Jane West

Dear Jon Hill,

In your latest message you undertook to provide a response by the 02 March 2011. It is today 09 March 2011 and I have yet to be provided with any details. I would also appreciate you dealing with my query regarding the classification made in my message of 24 January 2011 and repeated 09 February. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Harry Raffal

Dear Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council,

Please acknowledge my message of the ninth of March 2011. The council is now fifteen working days past the forty working day limit stipulated by law. I would appreciate an explanation as to why this is the case and why I have not been kept informed if delays were inevitable.

I would also appreciate knowing why my request is no longer being dealt with as a freedom of information request but instead being processed under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. This is the fourth time I have requested an explanation in regard to this. At no point as has the council explained its reasons for this shift or its full implications in terms of the response I should expect to receive or the different legal requirements faced under this legislation.

Please provide a response at the earliest possible convenience.

Yours faithfully,

Harry Raffal

Jon Hill, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Hammersmith & Fulham - Information request - Information Management Team

Our reference: 299005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Raffal,

Freedom of Information Act 2000

We write regarding your request for information, received on 26 October
2010.

It is with regret that we have been unable to complete our response within
the 20 working-days as required by the Act.

Please be assured that we are dealing with your request as matter of
urgency and we hope to provide you with a final response by 30 March 2011.
In the event that consideration is given to qualified exemptions we will
contact you again with a revised timescale.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Yours sincerely,

Ayse Ergen
Information Management Officer
[email address]

Jon Hill, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Hammersmith & Fulham - Information request - Information Management Team

Our reference: 299005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Raffal,

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

We write regarding your request for information, received on 26 October
2010.

It is with regret that we have been unable to complete our response within
the 20 working-days as required by the Act. This is due to the issues we
have been facing with staffing.

Please be assured that we are dealing with your request as matter of
urgency and we hope to provide you with a final response by 6 April 2011.
In the event that consideration is given to qualified exemptions we will
contact you again with a revised timescale.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Yours sincerely,

Ayse Ergen
Information Management Officer
[email address]

Jon Hill, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Hammersmith & Fulham - Information request - Information Management Team

Our reference: 299005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Raffal

Freedom of Information Act 2000 299005

Your request for information, received 26 October 2010, has now been
considered. I apologise for the delay in providing this response.

Your request

Could you please provide me with any correspondence and details you hold
between the council, or individual councillors, and the owners, past and
present, of Chelsea Football Club in relation to altering the current
planning constraints on Stamford Bridge?

While I confirm that we hold information falling within the description
specified in your request we believe that provision of this information is
manifestly unreasonable by way of the exception at Regulation 12(4)(b) of
the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

We believe that provision of this information would place a substantial
and unreasonable burden on our resources. The reason for this is that the
information is contained in over 1500 emails and 98 paper claim files. We
approximate that it would take 1 minute at the very least per email and 30
minutes per paper file to analyse and extract the relevant data totalling
74 hours. We maintain that for council officers to devote their time to
carrying out this work to the detriment of other priorities is clearly
unreasonable, and the exception under Regulation 12(4)(b) therefore
applies.

This information is therefore subject to a Refusal Notice.

However, if you were to make a new request for a more narrow category of
information, it may be that we could comply with that request, although I
cannot guarantee that this will be the case.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of this response, please contact
the Information Manager, Information Management Team, 3rd floor
Smartspace, Hammersmith Town Hall, King Street, London W6 9JU or email:
[1][email address].

You can also obtain further information from the Information
Commissioner's Office at:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Tel: 08456 306060
Website: [2]www.ico.gov.uk
Enquiries: [3]www.ico.gov.uk/Global/online_enquiries.aspx

Yours sincerely,

Ayse Ergen

Information Management Officer

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Information Management Team/Finance & Corporate Services

3rd Floor Smartspace

Hammersmith Town Hall

King Street

London W6 9JU

DL: 020 8753 7174

[4]www.lbhf.gov.uk

Director of Finance & Corporate Services: Jane West

References

Visible links
1. mailto:h&[email address]
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
3. http://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/online_enqu...
4. http://webapps3:8080/off/htmlarea/editor...

Dear Jon Hill,

I would like to formally request an internal review of the handling of this case. I accept that the scale of evidence produced may place an unreasonable burden on the council. However, if this is the case why has the council taken two months to reach this conclusion. I request the review examine why I have previously been assured a response and only now has this this request been refused. When I phoned Mr Hill in order to ascertain the progress of this request I was provided no indication that it might be refused. As I'm sure your aware a refusal of a request based on 12 (4) (b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 can only be maintained if it is manifestly unreasonable. If it is manifestly unreasonable it should stand to reason that this was clearly apparent at an early date, i.e when the quantity of information generated first required the council to breach the time limit for a response.

I would also request the review provide details of what work has so far been done on this request. Have any emails been looked through so far? If so how many? What is the total time so far expended on this request?

I would also appreciate the council answering my previous query as to where the councils first request for me to clarify the FoI was posted. Full details are available at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pl...

In regards to further clarifying the request to bring it into a reasonable request. Please can you confirm that all the current emails data deals with ALTERING the current planning constraints as per my request or if the quantity has been generated by a broad search which requires a member of your team to analyse each email in order to ascertain whether it is relevant. With out providing this information I cannot judge whether to contract the date range of my request, make a more detailed request or both.

Thank you for your time

Yours sincerely,

Harry Raffal

Ciara Shimidzu, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Hammersmith & Fulham - Information request - Information Management Team

Our reference: 299005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Dear Mr. Raffal,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Ref: 299005
Thank you for your request for an internal review, received 1 April 2011.
The Act mandates that you will receive a full response either 20 or 40
working days from receipt. I have calculated that you will receive a full
response by 5 May 2011, unless the case demands an extension of an
additional 20 working days.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries.
Yours sincerely,

Ayse Ergen on behalf of Ciara Shimidzu
Information Manager
[1][email address]

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Ciara Shimidzu, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

1 Attachment

Hammersmith & Fulham - Information request - Information Management Team

Our reference: 299005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Raffal,

I write regarding your request for information, received on 01 April 2011.

It is with regret that we have been unable to complete our response within
the 20 to 40 working-days as required by the Act to process an internal
review. This is because the designated officer did not progress the case.

I became aware of this delay today and am progressing it. Please be
assured that I am dealing with your request as matter of urgency and hope
to provide you with a final response by Monday 27 June. In the event that
consideration is given to qualified exemptions I will contact you again
with a revised timescale.

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Yours sincerely,

Ciara Shimidzu
Information Manager
[1][email address]

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Ciara Shimidzu,

Whilst I am sure you are processing this request with the urgency described in your message of the twentieth of June 2011 it is now the fourteenth of July 2011 and the deadline you hoped to meet of twenty-seventh of June 2011 has long since elapsed and I have had no further contact from you. I would greatly appreciate an update of this request and would appreciate a comprehensive explanation as to the cause of this further delay. I am sure you will agree I have acted with considerable forbearance regarding Hammersmith and Fulham's handling of the case thus far. However, given this request was original made on the twenty-sixth of October 2010 I will be obliged to contact the Information Commission if your department once again fails in providing the result of the internal review and addressing in full the points I have repeatedly outlined in previous communications.

Yours sincerely,

Harry Raffal

Shimidzu Ciara, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Dear Mr. Raffal,
Thank you for your email and ongoing patience. I am progressing with this case and apologise for the delay. Please be reassured that I have met with the officers concerned and I am currently reviewing all the potentially disclosable information which is taking longer than planned - I should have explained this to you sooner, for which I apologise. This is illustrated by our original response to your RFI which cites regulation 12 of the EIR, as the time it would take to extract the requested information is deemed to be "manifestly unreasonable". Previous guidance from the ICO has stated that this regulation can only be considered if it would take approximately 50 working hours, hopefully this goes some way to explain why it is taking so long

In addition to the length of time it is taking to review the information and cross-reference it with assisting department's actions, I have to focus on other compliance tasks to ensure they do not go overdue, such as data protection complaints and information security incidents. I do hope to complete my work on your case next week.

Please also be reassured that H&F performance on all RFIs now exceeds the ICO's guidance and benchmark but I appreciate that this is of little consolation to your case, which is the only overdue internal review I have. You are of course entitled to take your complaint to the ICO. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries.
Yours sincerely,

Ciara Shimidzu - Information Manager
Finance and Corporate Services
3rd Floor - SmartSpace, Hammersmith Town Hall
Tel. ext. 3895
BlackBerry: 07795 208032

show quoted sections

Ciara Shimidzu, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

Hammersmith & Fulham - Information request - Information Management Team

Our reference: 299005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Raffal,

Re: Request for an Internal Review under the Environment Information
Regulations 2004 - case 299005

Thank you for your ongoing patience with regards to our processing of your
internal review request, received by email on 01 April 2011. I emphasise
my deepest apologies for the ongoing delay in responding to your request.

Your request for an internal review is being treated as a priority and as
such, I am assisting the Information Manager with investigating the issues
you have raised with regards our handling of your request for information.

The departments involved in the original response to your request for
information are in the process of providing their final input with regards
the issues you raised. Once the Information Manager has received this, she
will be in a position to provide you with a full response to your internal
review request. Unfortunately key officers from whom we require input are
on leave. This is why it is taking longer than the Information Manager had
anticipated (in her email of 15 July 2011) to provide you with a full
response.

We will continue to keep you updated on our progress with your internal
review request. Please do not hesitate to contact me or the Information
Manager (contact details below) if you have any queries.

Information Manager

3rd floor Smartspace, Hammersmith Town Hall, King Street, London, W6 9JU

Tel: 020 8753 3895

Email: [1][email address]

Yours sincerely,

Anthea Ferguson

Senior Information Management Officer

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Information Management Team/Finance & Corporate Services

3rd Floor, Smartspace

Hammersmith Town Hall

King Street

London W6 9JU

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Ciara Shimidzu, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council

3 Attachments

Hammersmith & Fulham - Information request - Information Management Team

Our reference: 299005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Dear Mr. Raffal,

Re: request for internal review under the Environment Information
Regulations 2004 - case 299005

Thank you for your request for an internal review received by email on 01 April 2011 . Please accept my apologies for having to extend the standard 20 working day deadline to 40 working days as permitted by the Environment Information Regulations 2004 (the Regulations) in extenuating circumstances and for the subsequent delay. The reason for the extension was that the case is complex in that it requires a full review of the reason why Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) was applied to your case. The advice we have received from the ICO is that to apply this regulation, it would have to take the council between approximately 18 and 50 working hours to extract the information requested. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) we can refuse information under section 12 where the time taken to search, identify and extract the relevant information would exceed the appropriate cost and time limits of -L-450 or 18 hours. With the Regulations there is no prescribed limit for regulation 12(4)(b).

However under the Regulations the statutory deadline for providing a response to a request for information can be extended from 20 to 40 working days where the request is complex or voluminous (double that of the statutory deadline under the Act) our local policy is that a request can be considered manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Regulations where the time taken to search, identify and extract the relevant information exceeds 36 hours (double the time limit of the Act).

A full review of the audit trail plus the information upon which the
assessment was made took me beyond the 20 working day limit. The cause of
the subsequent delay was an administration error within the Information
Management Team and a number of urgent issues that required my attention
for which I fully apologise. As a result, I recruited the assistance of
my temporary Senior Information Management Officer to prevent further
delays.

I have now investigated the issues you brought to my attention and I hope
the response below is sufficient.

Your original request for information (RFI)

H&F received your original request for information on 26 October 2010.
Please see a copy of your questions and the H&F response, sent on 01 April
2011, attached.

Your request for an internal review

H&F received your request for internal review on 01 April 2011. A full
copy of your request is attached. I have extracted your issues and
responded to each below in turn. Your issues and questions have been
italicised and emboldened.

Our response

Please accept my apologies for the delay to your original request for
information. Unfortunately your above request for internal review was not
logged onto our iCasework system and assigned to me, as per procedure. I
have now investigated the causes of the delay to your case and I hope that
the explanation below is satisfactory.

Your RFI, case 299005, was received by the Council on 26 October 2010 with
a 20 working day due date of 23 November 2010. A final response was sent
to you on 01 April 2011. Your case was legitimately extended to the
maximum 40 working days due to the complexity of the case as permitted
under the Regulations. However, a delay of this time is a breach of the
Regulations and unsatisfactory. Please accept my apologies. The cause of
the delay with the original RFI have been addressed in that the
Information Management Team now have two temporary officers assisting with
the workload. As a result, since April 2011, 91% of all RFIs received
have been processed within the statutory time-limit. This exceeds the
ICO's recommendation of 85% within timescale by 6%.

I have summarised the actions taken in processing your request and the
cause of the delay in the chronology below:

S 18 November 2010 - Following consultation with the departments
responsible for collating the information requested, an email was sent,
requesting clarification of your request. At this point your request was
put on hold until clarification was received. Unfortunately due to issues
with H&F's RFI Case Management System, previously detailed in earlier
correspondence on 24 January 2011 and a summary provided as part of our
response below, the email was sent to an incorrect email address:
`[email address]'. This error has now been
rectified further to your feedback, thank you.

S 17 January 2011 - Our request for clarification was resent to you
at the following correct email address:
`[FOI #50189 email]'

S 21 January 2011 - We received clarification from you via email and
commenced processing your RFI with the response due on Thursday 27
January. Work was progressed in the department to determine the actions
needed to obtain all of the information requested from the various IT
systems and paper records, this required input from several officers. It
was anticipated that the time involved to obtain the relevant information
would be high, and could be manifestly unreasonable, however until all
possible information which could be relevant to this case was identified
we could not estimate the length of time it would take to extract the
information relevant to your request and therefore confirm whether the
request was manifestly unreasonable. The actions identified were as
follows:

Stage 1: Arrange a search of H&F's planning records for any record with
"Chelsea" of "Stamford" in the address, this should cover most
permutations. This search should be across all planning applications,
appeals, enforcement records from record 1987/01017/OUT onwards as this
was the original outline planning application. Where possible identify the
records with a legal agreement.

Stage 2: Once Stage 1 has been completed arrange a search of all
electronic correspondence related to those relevant planning records that
we identify in Stage 1. Note that this will only be relevant to those
records which are post the introduction of email at H&F.

Stage 3: Once Stage 1 and 2 have been completed, identify the planning
records returned from Stage 1 where the correspondence relating to them is
not held electronically. To retrieve the correspondence relating to these
records, each individual paper planning record will need to be reviewed
and the relevant information extracted.

Due to this we extended the deadline to the maximum 40 working days as
allowed under the Regulations where the process of accessing, retrieving
and supplying the information will be complex, and the amount of work
required voluminous.

S 09 February 2011 - We sent notification that the deadline for
processing your request needed to be extended to the maximum 40 working
days with the final response due by 23 February 2011. I apologise that you
did not receive this notification from us during the original 20 working
day period, in line with the Regulations. This should not have happened
and it has been made clear to all of my officers that should there be a
need to extend a deadline to the maximum 40 working days under the
Regulations, that this must be communicated during the original 20 working
day period.

S 11 February 2011 - Stage 1 of the actions identified above was
completed and a spreadsheet containing the relevant application references
was created.

S 23 March 2011 - Stage 2 of the actions identified above was
completed, over 1500 emails were identified as needing to be reviewed to
determine whether they held the correspondence requested in the RFI. This
Stage took longer to complete as at the time of the search, H&F's Email
Archiving System (EAS), which stores all emails held by H&F, was being
completely re-indexed. The initial search returned what appeared to be
duplicates therefore to obtain a more accurate figure of the emails
identified as needing to be reviewed, it was necessary to wait until the
indexing of the EAS had completed, before the search could be run again.
Once the second search was run, the numbers of emails identified had been
reduced to over 1500. H&F made a conservative estimate that it would take
approximately 1 minute to review and extract the relevant information from
each email. To ensure that H&F did not refuse the information under
12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) without due reason it was agreed that
H&F should complete Stage 3 of the actions identified above.

S 01 April 2011 - Stage 3 of the actions identified above was
completed, 98 paper records were identified as needing to be reviewed to
determine whether they held the correspondence requested in the RFI. H&F
estimated that it would take approximately 30 minutes per paper file to
review and extract the relevant information.

As soon as H&F were aware of the number of paper records and emails that
would need to be reviewed to extract the relevant information, and the
estimated time it would take to do this for each email and record, it was
clear that to spend further time on this, in order to respond to the
request, would be manifestly unreasonable and could be refused under
12(4)(b) of the Regulations. H&F therefore sent our response via email on
01 April 2011 refusing this information under Regulation 12(4)(b).

I accept that the scale of evidence produced may place an unreasonable burden on the council. However, if this is the case why has the council taken two months to reach this conclusion.

You will see from the chronology above, that in order for H&F to come to the conclusion that the request should be refused under Regulation 12(4)(b), it was necessary to determine the quantity of records and emails that would need to be reviewed, in order to extract the relevant information, and to estimate the time it would take to do this. H&F identified the actions required to determine the quantity of records during the original 20 working day period and determined that to complete these actions, would take in excess of the 20 working days due to the voluminous nature of the information to be searched through. As such, we extended the deadline to the maximum 40 working day period. It was not until these actions had been completed on 01 April 2011 that H&F knew that the quantity of information generated would result in the request being `manifestly unreasonable'.

I apologise that following your clarification of your request, the time which elapsed whilst undertaking the actions required to determine that the request was manifestly unreasonable was over 2 months. Although your request was treated as a priority, the officers concerned within the departments were also having to progress their day to day tasks to ensure that H&F continued to deliver appropriate levels of service to its residents. I appreciate that this delay to providing you with a response is not acceptable, and I emphasise my apologies to you for the inconvenience caused by this. H&F is currently reviewing how to improve the efficiency with which we process RFIs and it is hoped that the outcomes of this will reduce the likelihood of similar delays occurring again.

I request the review examine why I have previously been assured a response and only now has this this request been refused.

With regards to you having previously been "assured a response". Until we have considered a RFI in relation to the information which we confirm is held by H&F and the legislation which is applicable to the request, it is not possible to determine what H&F's response will be. Therefore no assurances should be made that the information requested would be provided. I therefore apologise if you were told that you would receive all of the information you had requested. You should have only been assured that you would receive a full response from us once we had considered your request as outlined above, that this response might well be subject to exceptions under the Regulations and that some or part of the information requested might not be held by H&F. I will raise this with the Information Management Team to ensure that this does not happen again.

When I phoned Mr Hill in order to ascertain the progress of this request I was provided no indication that it might be refused.

I apologise that you were not advised that the full response we would send regarding your request for information might well be subject to exceptions under the Regulations and that some or part of the information requested might not be held by H&F. As stated above I will raise this with the Information Management Team to ensure that this does not happen again.

As I'm sure your aware a refusal of a request based on 12 (4) (b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 can only be maintained if it is manifestly unreasonable. If it is manifestly unreasonable it should stand to reason that this was clearly apparent at an early date, i.e when the quantity of information generated first required the council to breach the time limit for a response.

Please refer to my response above addressing why it took the council two months to conclude that the request was manifestly unreasonable.

I would also request the review provide details of what work has so far been done on this request.

Have any emails been looked through so far?

If so how many?

What is the total time so far expended on this request?

Please refer to the detailed chronology above for details of what actions were taken in order to respond to your request on 01 April 2011. Of the over 1500 emails identified as needing to be reviewed in order to extract the relevant information, a representative sample have been looked at in order to estimate the length of time it would take to review all of the emails to provide the information requested.

The total time expended on this request in order to respond to your request on 01 April 2011 is difficult to quantify, as several officers have undertaken tasks, and a record is not kept of how long has been spent on these activities.

I would also appreciate the council answering my previous query as to where the councils first request for me to clarify the FoI was posted. Full details are available at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pl...

As detailed in the chronology above, on the 18 November 2010, a request
for clarification was sent by H&F to the following two email addresses:

S `[email address]'.

S [1][email address].

As you have informed us, the first email address listed above was not the
email address you had established for this particular request and the
second email address was a personal email address which you had requested
we did not use.

I reiterate my apology given in my email sent on 24 January 2011 with
regards to contacting you on your personal email address. The Information
Management Team will not use this address in the future. Please note that
we no longer use this email address further to your express instruction.

With regards the issue of H&F using an incorrect email address to contact
you for this particular case, the reasons for this were previously
explained in detail in my email sent on 24 January. In summary, at the
time this RFI was being processed, H&F were unaware of the problems
encountered with the H&F RFI Case Management System (iCasework) when
regular requestors submit more than one request, each with a dedicated
email address or channel. iCasework consists of a number of related
database tables, one of which is for all Contact Details (namely the
requestor details) and all their RFIs link back to this one set of Contact
Details. This would explain why you did not receive this clarification
request via the dedicated email address channel you set up. As you know,
the problem has now been fixed so it will not recur.

In regards to further clarifying the request to bring it into a reasonable
request. Please can you confirm that all the current emails data deals
with ALTERING the current planning constraints as per my request or if the
quantity has been generated by a broad search which requires a member of
your team to analyse each email in order to ascertain whether it is
relevant.

Due to the way that the information is stored by H&F, it is not possible
to use IT systems to identify only the emails which relate to `ALTERING
the current planning constraints'. In order for H&F to provide this
information a broad search has had to be done (details of this are
provided in the chronology above) and it will then take an officer to
review each email in turn to determine whether it is relevant to your
request.

With out providing this information I cannot judge whether to contract the
date range of my request, make a more detailed request or both.

If you were to make a more detailed request then it may be that we could
comply with that request rather than refusing it under section 12(4)(b) as
manifestly unreasonable, although I cannot guarantee that this will be the
case.

To assist you with this we have attached a spreadsheet listing the 105
separate planning cases (98 planning applications and 7 enforcement
actions) which were identified as part of Stage 1, we have also provided
some commentary regarding this spreadsheet of planning cases. You may wish
to narrow down your request to the correspondence relating to those
planning cases which you are most interested in. We would anticipate that
retrieving the correspondence for cases after June 2007 will take less
time than for those before as we can do this electronically (although it
may still take a manual examination of each of these emails by an officer
to determine if they are concerned with altering the current planning
constraints).

To assist with understanding the structure of the attached spreadsheet and
the key planning cases listed in it, the following chronology may be of
use:

+ The original outline planning permission for the redevelopment of
Stamford Bridge Stadium is planning application reference
1987/01017/OUT (record No.2 on the attached list).
+ This application was "called in" by the Secretary of State, and the
subsequent decision to grant outline planning permission on 7 March
1989 was made by him. Copies of the decision notice and the Legal
Agreement that goes with it are available to view on the H&F's
website.
+ The relevant reserved matters applications were then approved by H&F
(these are identified in the "Application Type" column as "submission
of reserved matters") and the redevelopment was started in January
1994 (with the construction of the new north stand).
+ In the meantime a reappraisal of the remaining aspects of the
proposals by the applicant resulted in various changes to the
previously approved development, which necessitated the submission of
new planning applications.
+ These were granted planning permission by the Secretary of State on 12
November 1999, following a public inquiry .

Of the planning cases listed on the spreadsheet you might wish to consider
discounting all of the cases that were either lapsed by the Council or
withdrawn by the applicant/agent - as none of these cases were formally
determined. This should account for 20 of the 98 planning application
records: Numbers 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 37, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 59, 61, 63, 79,
82, 83, 84, 92 and 94. Where the records were determined by H&F, the
decision notices for these records should all be available to view on
H&F's website, and in the case of the more recent records (2005 and later)
the drawings and supporting information should also be available to view
via H&F's website.

You may also be less interested in the applications that were refused by
the Council (10 records: Numbers 5, 7, 15, 23, 30, 32, 42, 51, 60 and 70),
as opposed to those that were approved (55 records).

There are also a couple of cases in the list that do not relate Stamford
Bridge itself (89 and 91).

The remaining records represent those where H&F was unable to formally
determine the application because the applicant had already lodged an
appeal. In such cases the power to determine the applications passes to
the Secretary of State's Planning Inspectorate. However, it is normal in
these cases for H&F to confirm to the appeal Inspector what decision it
would have taken had it still been empowered to decide the application
(i.e. in the absence of an appeal) and the reasons for this. This is why
these records are identified in the "Decision" column of the spread sheet
as "Not Determined (Refusal Recommended)" or "Not Determined (Approval
Recommended)" - This is where H&F have indicated to the Inspector that the
Council would have refused permission and the Council would have granted
permission, respectively. All of these "non-determination appeal" cases
(8 records) would therefore have been determined by the Planning
Inspectorate, rather than by the H&F.

My investigation into your request for internal review concludes that your
request for an internal review is partially upheld. This is due to the
following factors:

a) I uphold the fact that the time taken to determine that
the request was manifestly unreasonable was not acceptable and we should
have provided our response within the extended 40 working day deadline.

b) I also uphold that you should not have been assured
that all of the information requested would be provided, as until we have
determined what information is held by H&F and what exceptions under the
regulations would apply to it, we are not in a position to provide this
assurance. You should therefore have been informed of this when contacting
the Information Management Team.

c) However, I do not uphold the part of your request
regarding the application of regulation 12(4)(b) and the issue a refusal
notice as we did advise you that the request was manifestly unreasonable
as soon as we had determined that the quantity of paper records and emails
to be reviewed, although this did take far longer than satisfactory.

d) I also uphold our original decision that the request in
its original state is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b),
for the reasons provided in our original response.

I emphasise my deepest apologies for any inconvenience caused to you.

If you feel dissatisfied with the handling of your request for an internal
review under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, you have the right to
complain to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, [2]http://www.ico.gov.uk.

If you feel dissatisfied with the service you have received from H&F
Homes, please use the council's corporate complaints service for which any
information disclosed via your requests for information can be used:
[3]http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Council...
.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries
regarding this response.

Yours sincerely

Ciara Shimidzu

Information Manager

Tel: 020 8753 3895

Email: [4][email address]

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
3. http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Council...
4. mailto:[email address]

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org