PNC LoS Weeding Numbers & Policy

The request was refused by West Midlands Police.

Dear West Midlands Police,

Please provide the following information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, since 01/01/2022 in excel format:

i. vehicles/VRMs*, make and model, reported stolen with the date of loss
ii. Of the above (at ‘i) those recovered – the date of recovery
iii. Of the above (at ‘i’) those that were ‘weeded’** with the date of said weeding
iv. Of the above (at ‘iii’) the data the VRMs were reinstated on PNC LoS
a. The above should determine / identify those currently weeded, the date they were weeded, but have yet to be reinstated
v. The PNC policy / advice (PNC manual information) relating to recording a vehicle LoS on PNC and policy relating to ‘weeding’
vi. Your constabulary’s policy with regard to recording a vehicle LoS on PNC and your policy relating to ‘weeding’ – the actions to be taken from notification of theft, confirmation of the crime, use of PNC 150(?), in the event of weeding, to finalisation and with whom responsibility rests during the life of the crime

*In the event you are not prepared to release the full VRM., I believe the first 4 characters can be supplied
** understood to be the process of an 'unconfirmed' LoS report 'falling off' (being automatically removed) from PNC LoS after about 6 weeks from the initial recording of LoS on PNC

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Thankyou for your e-mail, you have contacted the Freedom of Information
Department

Valid FOI requests will be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. We will endeavour to provide a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days, as defined by the Act, subject to
the application of any statutory exemptions. Where consideration is being
given to the application of any exemptions the 20 working day timescale
may be extended under the terms of the Act to a period considered
reasonable depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In
such cases you will be notified. In all cases we shall attempt to deal
with your request at the earliest opportunity.

What can I not access under FOI?
You will not be able to access information:

  *   about yourself. This is a Subject Access
Request<https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...>
(SAR)
  *   about third parties
  *   about your police record
  *   to access legal aid
  *   for employment purposes
  *   for civil proceedings
  *    for insurance requests
  *    in relation to police certificates for the purpose of emigration,
visas and residency
If you want to make a request on any of the above, visit our main website
to find out how:
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...

or make contact with the `Live Chat` team on the force website who will be
able to assist you further.
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/cont...

Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.
If it’s not 999, search WMP Online<https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/>

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

4 Attachments

Dear Mr P Swift

 

FOI Request Reference: 1296A/23

 

Thank you for your request for information, received 22/08/23

 

REQUEST

 

Since 01/01/2022

 

1.vehicles/VRMs, make and model, reported stolen with the date of loss –

 

2. Of the above (at ‘i) those recovered – the date of recovery.

 

3.Of the above (at ‘i’) those that were ‘weeded’** with the date of said
weeding –

 

4. Of the above (at ‘iii’) the data the VRMs were reinstated on PNC LOS

 

a. The above should determine / identify those currently weeded, the date
they were weeded, but have yet to be reinstated

 

5. The PNC policy / advice (PNC manual information) relating to recording
a vehicle LOS on PNC and policy relating to ‘weeding’

 

6. Your constabulary’s policy with regard to recording a vehicle LoS on
PNC and your policy relating to ‘weeding’ – the actions to be taken from
notification of theft, confirmation of the crime, use of PNC 150(?), in
the event of weeding, to finalisation and with whom responsibility rests
during the life of the crime

 

RESPONSE

 

Please find enclosed our response.

 

Our data are not organised in such a way as to allow us to provide all of
this information within the appropriate (cost) limit under the Freedom of
Information (FOI) Act.  LOS vehicles are not a mandatory field within our
systems. LOS is not always entered within the originator line within our
systems, sometimes the data is input using a log number as this is a free
text format. Therefore, all records that have an update and log number
would need to be located, retrieved and manually read to see if any of the
information you have requested is contained within the report. Using the
first 3 months of 2022 for calculation purpose there were 

 

1906 updates which were entered as LOG x 5 mins to review – 158 hours.
Therefore, to conduct this manual search we anticipate this taking around
1,106 hours, far exceeding the appropriate limit (FOIA, s.12).

 

This means that the cost of providing you with the information is above
the amount to which we are legally required to respond i.e. the cost of
locating and retrieving the information exceeds the ‘appropriate level’ as
stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit)
Regulations 2004.

 

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts
as a Refusal Notice for this request. However, under Section 16 of the Act
I have a duty to provide advice and assistance in relation to your request
and may be able to provide the following information, I have detailed this
alongside each question, below.

 

Question 1. The total of crime reports where a vehicle has been reported
stolen by make and model (if recorded) broken down by month.

 

VRM- would be exempt by Section 40 – Personal Data. As detailed in a
recent decision notice reference ICO ref: IC-168207-S7L9

Question 2. The total of recovered vehicles obtained from our Crime
reports (if recorded as recovered) broken down by month. 

Question 3. How many reports were weeded.

Question 4.How many were re-instated

Question 4a. Those currently weeded, the date they were weeded, but have
yet to be reinstated

Question 5.A copy of the section within the PNC Manual that details how to
log the LOS on PNC and the weeding process

Question 6. An explanation in relation to how crime is dealt with.

Further information on section 12 of FOI is available here:

 

[1]https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...

 

As recommended as good practice by the Information Commissioner’s Office a
version of this response may be published on the West Midlands Police
website.

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

For further information and data on West Midlands Police see our
publication scheme and disclosure log:

 

[2]https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/

 

RIGHT OF APPEAL

 

Your attention is drawn to your right to request a re-examination of your
case under West Midlands Police review procedure, which can be found at:

 

[3]https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revi...

 

[4]www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints

 

Please note that such an appeal must be received within 40 working days of
the date of this correspondence. Any such request received after this time
will only be considered at the discretion of the FOI Unit.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Michelle

 

Michelle Richardson | Freedom of Information
Corporate Communications | West Midlands Police

Working in partnership, making communities safer

[5]If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

[6]twitter icon [7]Instagram Icon [8]YouTube Icon [9]Facebook icon

[10]View all our social network links

 

 

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...
2. https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/
3. https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revi...
4. http://www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints
5. website
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/
6. http://www.twitter.com/wmpolice
7. http://www.instagram.com/westmidlandspol...
8. http://www.youtube.com/westmidlandspolice
9. http://www.facebook.com/westmidlandspolice
10. Social Networks
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/cont...

Dear West Midlands Police,
with regard to your response:
How is your data organised?
What does ‘LOS vehicles are not a mandatory field within our systems' mean; what systems, why would whether a vehicle is stolen not be mandatory of this were the subject of the lalegation, the crime alleged ?
What is an ‘originator line’?
what does ‘all records that have an ‘update’ and ‘log number’ refer to?
I have been supplied a response compiled of phases/terminology that is meaningless to me, that does not explain the difficulty presented and in turn, assist me in understanding the methodology or how to refine my request
I use the following abbreviations:

LoS - Lost or Stolen
PNC - Police National Computer

under Section 16 of the Act you have a duty to provide advice and assistance in relation to my request however, it appears the approach has been to withhold or ignore:

Question 1. The total of crime reports where a vehicle has been reported stolen by make and model (if recorded) broken down by month.
Response: VRM- would be exempt by Section 40 – Personal Data. As detailed in a recent decision notice reference ICO ref: IC-168207-S7L9
You have not provided the information sought ‘make and model, reported stolen with the date of loss;
You have overlooked that I was specific with regard to the VRM writing ’In the event you are not prepared to release the full VRM., I believe the first 4 characters can be supplied'.
Question 2. The total of recovered vehicles obtained from our Crime reports (if recorded as recovered) broken down by month.
Is the data organised such that this could be provided? If not, how is the data organised such that vehicle recovery information can be obtained and provided?
Do you know how many vehicles were stolen month on month and how many are found; if so, by reference to what information, please supply this.
Question 3. How many reports were weeded?
Is the data organised such that this could be provided?
I understand constabularies receive fortnightly updates (from PNC bureau?). this suggests that such a report could be provided to me, possibly within a shorter time frame yet none has been suggested.
Question 4. How many were re-instated
Is the data organised such that this could be provided? How is the data organised?
I am seeking to understand how many LoS records are weeded (fall off the PNC LoS register) and:
• Remain off i.e., have been weeded and not reinstated
• Have been weeded but reinstated as the weeding should not have occurred
Question 4a. Those currently weeded, the date they were weeded, but have yet to be reinstated
are you stating that you are unable to determine how many VRM’s reported to WMP as LoS have been weeded and remain off the PNC LoS register?
Question 5.A copy of the section within the PNC Manual that details how to log the LOS on PNC and the weeding process
This appears to be something that can easily be provided.
Do you possess the information?
Question 6. An explanation in relation to how crime is dealt with.
This is not what I have asked. I have sought a policy.
This appears to be something that can easily be provided.
Do you possess the information?
It is unclear from your response whether you hold the information I have requested. Please clarify with regard to each section of my request.
Please clearly explain which, if any, question causes section 12 to be engaged and remove this.
I do not know what information could be provided within the appropriate limit.
Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Dear Mr Swift

 

FOI Internal Review Reference: 1456A/23

Thank you for your correspondence received 24/09/2023 where you requested
West Midlands Police to review its response to your request for
information under reference number 1296A/23.

 

On 22/08/23 you requested the following:

Since 01/01/2022

1.vehicles/VRMs, make and model, reported stolen with the date of loss –

2. Of the above (at ‘i) those recovered – the date of recovery.

3.Of the above (at ‘i’) those that were ‘weeded’** with the date of said
weeding –

4. Of the above (at ‘iii’) the data the VRMs were reinstated on PNC LOS

a. The above should determine / identify those currently weeded, the date
they were weeded, but have yet to be reinstated

5. The PNC policy / advice (PNC manual information) relating to recording
a vehicle LOS on PNC and policy relating to ‘weeding’

6. Your constabulary’s policy with regard to recording a vehicle LoS on
PNC and your policy relating to ‘weeding’ – the actions to be taken from
notification of theft, confirmation of the crime, use of PNC 150(?), in
the event of weeding, to finalisation and with whom responsibility rests
during the life of the crime

 

The force responded on 20^th September 2023 and advised that our data are
not organised in such a way as to allow us to provide all of this
information within the appropriate (cost) limit under the Freedom of
Information (FOI) Act.  LOS vehicles are not a mandatory field within our
systems. LOS is not always entered within the originator line within our
systems, sometimes the data is input using a log number as this is a free
text format. Therefore, all records that have an update and log number
would need to be located, retrieved and manually read to see if any of the
information you have requested is contained within the report. Using the
first 3 months of 2022 for calculation purpose there were:

 

1906 updates which were entered as LOG x 5 mins to review – 158 hours.
Therefore, to conduct this manual search we anticipate this taking around
1,106 hours, far exceeding the appropriate limit (FOIA, s.12).

 

This means that the cost of providing you with the information is above
the amount to which we are legally required to respond i.e. the cost of
locating and retrieving the information exceeds the ‘appropriate level’ as
stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit)
Regulations 2004.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts
as a Refusal Notice for this part of the request. We advised that under
Section 16 of the Act we have a duty to provide advice and assistance in
relation to your request and may be able to provide the following
information, detailed alongside each question, below.

 

Question 1. The total of crime reports where a vehicle has been reported
stolen by make and model (if recorded) broken down by month.

 

VRM- would be exempt by Section 40 – Personal Data. As detailed in a
recent decision notice reference ICO ref: IC-168207-S7L9

Question 2. The total of recovered vehicles obtained from our Crime
reports (if recorded as recovered) broken down by month. 

Question 3. How many reports were weeded.

Question 4. How many were re-instated

Question 4a. Those currently weeded, the date they were weeded, but have
yet to be reinstated

Question 5. A copy of the section within the PNC Manual that details how
to log the LOS on PNC and the weeding process

Question 6. An explanation in relation to how crime is dealt with.

 

REQUEST

You have requested an internal review of the force response on the
following basis:

You believe that you have been supplied a response compiled of
phases/terminology that is meaningless to you, that does not explain the
difficulty presented and in turn, assist you in understanding the
methodology or how to refine your request.

 

You refer to that, under Section 16 of the Act we have a duty to provide
advice and assistance in relation to your request however, it appears the
approach has been to withhold or ignore, and have stated the following:

 

Question 1. You have not provided the information sought ‘make and model,
reported stolen with the date of loss; You have overlooked that I was
specific with regard to the VRM writing ’In the event you are not prepared
to release the full VRM., I believe the first 4 characters can be
supplied'.

Question 2. Is the data organised such that this could be provided?

Question 3. Is the data organised such that this could be provided?

Question 4. Is the data organised such that this could be provided?

I am seeking to understand how many LoS records are weeded (fall off the
PNC LoS register) and:

•       Remain off i.e., have been weeded and not reinstated

•       Have been weeded but reinstated as the weeding should not have
occurred

Question 4a. Are you stating that you are unable to determine how many
VRM’s reported to WMP as LoS have been weeded and remain off the PNC LoS
register?

Question 5. Do you possess the information?

Question 6. I have sought a policy. Do you possess the information?

You believe that it is unclear from the response whether we hold the
information requested. 

Please clearly explain which, if any, question causes section 12 to be
engaged and remove this.

I do not know what information could be provided within the appropriate
limit.

 

RESPONSE

The response has now been reviewed and the force maintains that your
request was responded to on a proper basis.

The response provided to you on 20^th September 2023 explained that all of
the information that you requested was not held in a retrievable format.
And advised what parts of the request this exemption applied to. Under
Section 16 of the Act we advised what information may be available to you
should you wish to refine your request. The relevant information that we
may be able to provide was detailed alongside each question.

 

It appears that you have misunderstood the response that was provided to
you. The response provided on 20^th September 2023 was not a refusal for
the whole request. The response advised which part of the request was not
retrievable within cost, and what information may be available to you
should you wish to refine your request. I have copied this again below,
for ease of reference. The below details what relevant information may be
available to you for each question that you have submitted.

 

Question 1. The total of crime reports where a vehicle has been reported
stolen by make and model (if recorded) broken down by month.

 

VRM- would be exempt by Section 40 – Personal Data. As detailed in a
recent decision notice reference ICO ref: IC-168207-S7L9

Question 2. The total of recovered vehicles obtained from our Crime
reports (if recorded as recovered) broken down by month. 

Question 3. How many reports were weeded.

Question 4.How many were re-instated

Question 4a. Those currently weeded, the date they were weeded, but have
yet to be reinstated

Question 5.A copy of the section within the PNC Manual that details how to
log the LOS on PNC and the weeding process

Question 6. An explanation in relation to how crime is dealt with.

I hope that this is of assistance.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information
Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9
5AF

Link to their website: [1]FOI and EIR complaints | ICO

[2]Contact us | ICO

 

Should you wish to proceed with your FOI request logged under reference
1296A/23, and receive the information that we have advised is available,
please contact the FOI Unit confirming as such

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mrs R Williams l FOI Manager

Lloyd House l West Midlands Police

Working in partnership, making communities safer

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/foi-...
2. https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

Dear Freedom of Information,

20/09/2023 you wrote:

'We advised that under Section 16 of the Act we have a duty to provide advice and assistance in
relation to your request and may be able to provide the following information, detailed alongside each question, below.

Question 1. The total of crime reports where a vehicle has been reported
stolen by make and model (if recorded) broken down by month. VRM- would be exempt by Section 40 – Personal Data. As detailed in a recent decision notice reference ICO ref: IC-168207-S7L9

Question 2. The total of recovered vehicles obtained from our Crimereports (if recorded as recovered) broken down by month.

Question 3. How many reports were weeded.

Question 4. How many were re-instated

Question 4a. Those currently weeded, the date they were weeded, but have yet to be reinstated

Question 5. A copy of the section within the PNC Manual that details how to log the LOS on PNC and the weeding process

Question 6. An explanation in relation to how crime is dealt with.'

I await the responses to Q2 to Q6 above, your rephrasing of my approach which I submit as a new request

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear Freedom of Information,

For the sake of clarity, the re-submission follows your 02/10/2023 writing, with regard to Q2 to Q6 inclusive 'The below details what relevant information may be available to you for each question that you have submitted.

Question 1. 'The total of crime reports where a vehicle has been reported stolen by make and model (if recorded) broken down by month.' should be included

your caveat 'VRM- would be exempt by Section 40 – Personal Data. As detailed in a recent decision notice reference ICO ref: IC-168207-S7L9' as I have specifically addressed this in the original request seeking the first 4 characters only of a VRM. the ICO ref' you cite is not relevant.

Today's submissions confirm I wish to proceed with my FOI request logged under reference1296A/23, and receive the information that you appear (albeit not clearly) to have advised is available.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear Freedom of Information,

It may assist to be aware that the 'weeding' is of genuine concern. it is causing victims of crime to be victims of constabularies which in turn, whilst our attention to such matters receives support and thanks, constabularies are leaving themselves open to criticism, and complaint.

With regard to another constabulary we have written as follows, the content and sentiment apply to this request of yourselves:

Friday 06/10/2022.

The police have today responded to our email of 02/10/2023 which asked whether a stolen vehicle had been recovered; it was no longer on the PNC (Police National Computer) LoS (Lost or Stolen) register.

As suspected, someone within the constabulary failed to ‘confirm’ the theft allegation within 6 weeks following the date the theft was recorded. As a result, an automated ‘weeding’ process occurred; the VRM ‘fell off’ the LoS register.

This is becoming an increasing problem and we can only wonder at how many vehicle theft allegations are subject to such behaviour, in turn, how many stolen vehicles are no longer recorded LoS but should be.

In this instance, there was no suggestion the weeding event had been conveyed to the OiC causing us to question what would have occurred if we had not alerted the constabulary to the change of status. Clearly, if not on the PNC LoS the VRM would not alert if it passed an ANPR camera, and officers stopping the vehicle (even on false plates) who identified the VRM, would not readily learn it was in fact that of a vehicle reported stolen. The likelihood of recovery is reduced, if not close to, or actually, nil.

The concerns are not restricted to law enforcement activity. Vehicle Provence (VP) companies who acquire and provide checks to the public, if approached in respect of the VRM, will inadvertently provide information that does not accurately reflect the stolen status. This could lead to subsequent claims against them, and even if no financial damage occurs, their reputation is likely tainted.

Following reinstatement to PNC LoS, any innocent purchaser (of the stolen vehicle) could consequently be stopped, detained and police time engaged reconciling the issue. The innocent purchaser, not alerted to the true status, stands to lose all (N.E.M. vs Jones).

The chances of the vehicle being recovered if not on PNC LoS and returned to the victim or their insurer is greatly reduced, if not nil.

The situation creates more activity for adjusters, insurers and ultimately leads to delays for the victim. In this instance, the OiC is not on duty. The party with whom we spoke has been required to undertake enquiries to establish the facts, determine whether the vehicle has been located and make contact, offering explanation and apology.

This officer, unable to confirm the situation with the OiC, has kindly offered to reinstate the LoS marker today.

Unfortunately, the archaic nature of vehicle data transfer, means that whilst the VRM may well now be reinstated to the PNC LoS register, we will be unable to confirm this by enquiry until Monday 09/10/2023. Remarkably, in this technological age, the LoS records do not transfer to VP companies in real time. It is anticipated the public records will show clear for almost 3 days more!

P. Swift

12 October 2023

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Your complaint about: West Midlands Police
Their reference: 1456A/23
Our reference: IC-262116-B4K0

Thank you for your complaint and supporting information about the above public authority’s handling of your request for information.

Your complaint is now eligible for investigation. We will allocate it to a case officer as soon as we can. The focus of their investigation will be to determine whether the public authority handled your request in
accordance with the legislation.

If you wish to send us any further information or comments in the meantime, please quote the reference number at the top of this correspondence.

Once a case officer is assigned and has concluded their investigation, they will inform you of their decision.
Incoming emails are monitored, but detailed enquiries relating to the case can only be addressed once your case is allocated for investigation.

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

further detail has been sought here - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/o...

the problem of 'weeding' is raised with WMP here https://carclaims.help/230928-to-west-mi...

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

7 Attachments

Dear Mr P Swift

 

FOI Request Reference: 1296A/23

 

Thank you for your refined request for information, received 03/10/23

 

REFINED REQUEST

 

Question 1. The total of crime reports where a vehicle has been reported
stolen by make and model (if recorded) broken down by month.

 

Question 1b. vehicles/VRMs,

 

Question 2. The total of recovered vehicles obtained from our Crime
reports (if recorded as recovered) broken down by month.

 

Question 3. How many reports were weeded.

 

Question 4. How many were re-instated

 

Question 4a. Those currently weeded, the date they were weeded, but have 
yet to be reinstated

 

Question 5.A copy of the section within the PNC Manual that details how
to  log the LOS on PNC and the weeding process

 

Question 6. An explanation in relation to how crime is dealt with.

 

RESPONSE

 

Please find attached our response.

 

In relation Question1b, the vehicle has been provided, however in relation
to VRM, we are withholding this information since it is exempt by virtue
of the following exemptions:

 

Section 40- Personal Data 

 

Section 40(2) allows for personal data to be withheld where release would
breach the third party’s data protection rights. It would be unfair to
release this information where any person could be identified from the
data and in this case the right to privacy outweighs any public interest
in release.

 

As recommended as good practice by the Information Commissioner’s Office a
version of this response may be published on the West Midlands Police
website.

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

For further information and data on West Midlands Police see our
publication scheme and disclosure log:

 

[1]https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/

 

RIGHT OF APPEAL

 

Your attention is drawn to your right to request a re-examination of your
case under West Midlands Police review procedure, which can be found at:

 

[2]https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revi...

 

[3]www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints

 

Please note that such an appeal must be received within 40 working days of
the date of this correspondence. Any such request received after this time
will only be considered at the discretion of the FOI Unit.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Michelle

 

Michelle Richardson | Freedom of Information
Corporate Communications | West Midlands Police

Working in partnership, making communities safer

[4]If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

[5]twitter icon [6]Instagram Icon [7]YouTube Icon [8]Facebook icon

[9]View all our social network links

 

 

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/
2. https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revi...
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints
4. website
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/
5. http://www.twitter.com/wmpolice
6. http://www.instagram.com/westmidlandspol...
7. http://www.youtube.com/westmidlandspolice
8. http://www.facebook.com/westmidlandspolice
9. Social Networks
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/cont...

Dear Freedom of Information,

could i trouble you to provide the attachments, pdfs, as spreadsheets? Thank you.

you advise, 'None would have been weeded as Reports are not weeded for 6 years. **We do not
have any unconfirmed Los as we run a procedure weekly which highlights any not
confirmed and we either confirm them or delete them as they have been recorded in
error' and other responses refer to '6 years'. I believe there is a misunderstanding which I had hoped my annotation (06/10/2023) would have assisted with.

The 'weeding' to which I am referring is the 6-week automated removal from PNC LoS in the event a VRM is not conformed as LoS. I have raised at least two such matters with WMP this year and am concerned it is a problem yet to be addressed. More information can be found at:

https://www.cmaclaims.co.uk/vehicle-reco...
https://www.cmaclaims.co.uk/vehicle-reco...

Lastly, I am aware of the argument VRMs are personal and whilst I disagree (and understand this does not extend to VRMs registered to 'commercial entities'), it is my belief the first 4 characters are acceptable to disclose and would give me an indication of the vehicle age.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear Freedom of Information,
I have received some information, namely
1. vehicles/VRMs*, make and model, reported stolen with the date of loss.
You have provided 41 page table which I have asked for in excel format.
2. Of the above (at ‘i) those recovered – the date of recovery
You have provided 13 page table which I have asked for in excel format.
I cannot correlate one table with another i.e. I cannot determine which of the vehicles at ‘1’ are represented at ‘2’, whether they are. I wish to understand of ‘1’ which were located and the date thereby enabling me to determine the recovery figures and the time between theft and finding
Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear Freedom of Information,

I remind you, with regard to your response, I am unable to understand this due to your phraseology and lack of explanation:

1. How is your data organised?
2. What does ‘LOS vehicles are not a mandatory field within our systems' mean;
3. what systems,
4. why would whether a vehicle is stolen not be mandatory if this were the subject of the allegation, the crime alleged ?
5. What is an ‘originator line’?
6. what does ‘all records that have an ‘update’ and ‘log number’ refer to?

I have been supplied a response compiled of phases/terminology that is meaningless to me, that does not explain the difficulty presented and in turn, assist me in understanding the methodology or how to refine my request

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

4 Attachments

 

Good Afternoon Mr Swift

 

I note we have received queries and e-mails in relation to this subject
matter over the past few days . although we aim to provide data and
responses to queries where asked as soon as we can , sending multiple /
overlapping queries and e-mails in a short period can place an
administrative burden and can cause unnecessary delays,  especially if the
force have not yet responded to the original queries .The FOI department
apply the FOI legislation , therefore we need to refer to the data
supplier to clarify any queries that are asked . We will provide a
response to your queries as soon as possible .

 

Your patience in the matter is much appreciated .

 

For ease of reference I have detailed your queries below ( in bold ) and
provided comment ( in normal text ), to ensure you know the progress and
how these will be responded to.

 

Query received 27/10 in relation to the response 1296A/23

Could I trouble you to provide the attachments, pdfs, as spreadsheets? 

We are currently dealing with this query.

you advise, 'None would have been weeded as Reports are not weeded for 6
years. **We do not have any unconfirmed Los as we run a procedure weekly
which highlights any not confirmed and we either confirm them or delete
them as they have been recorded in error' and other responses refer to '6
years'.  I believe there is a misunderstanding which I had hoped my
annotation (06/10/2023) would have assisted with. - The 'weeding' to which
I am referring is the 6-week automated removal from PNC LoS in the event a
VRM is not conformed as LoS.  I have raised at least two such matters with
WMP this year and am concerned it is a problem yet to be addressed.  More
information can be found at:

We are currently dealing with this query.

Lastly, I am aware of the argument VRMs are personal and whilst I disagree
(and understand this does not extend to VRMs registered to 'commercial
entities'), it is my belief the first 4 characters are acceptable to
disclose and would give me an indication of the vehicle age.

Please confirm if you require an Internal Review in relation to the
response provided for this question .

Query received 30/10/23

I have received some information, namely

1.vehicles/VRMs*, make and model, reported stolen with the date of loss.

You have provided 41-page table which I have asked for in excel format.

We are currently dealing with this query, as above .

2. Of the above (at ‘i) those recovered – the date of recovery

You have provided 13-page table which I have asked for in excel format.

I cannot correlate one table with another i.e. I cannot determine which of
the vehicles at ‘1’ are represented at ‘2’, whether they are.  I wish to
understand of ‘1’ which were located and the date thereby enabling me to
determine the recovery figures and the time between theft and finding

We are currently dealing with this query.

I trust this assists.

 

 

 

Many thanks

 

Michelle

 

Michelle Richardson | Freedom of Information
Corporate Communications | West Midlands Police

Working in partnership, making communities safer

[1]If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

[2]twitter icon [3]Instagram Icon [4]YouTube Icon [5]Facebook icon

[6]View all our social network links

 

 

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. website
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/
2. http://www.twitter.com/wmpolice
3. http://www.instagram.com/westmidlandspol...
4. http://www.youtube.com/westmidlandspolice
5. http://www.facebook.com/westmidlandspolice
6. Social Networks
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/cont...

Dear Freedom of Information,

Unfortunately the WDTK site displays in what appears to be plain text, formatting is removed, your ‘bold’ is therefore not identifiable however, there appears to be a single query:

A. Lastly, I am aware of the argument VRMs are personal and whilst I disagree (and understand this does not extend to VRMs registered to 'commercial entities'), it is my belief the first 4 characters are acceptable to disclose and would give me an indication of the vehicle age.

I am not requiring an Internal Review in relation to the response provided for this question at this stage. It was intend to be an observation having noted NPCC guidance on the issue, asked for this but was without comment.

No assistance having been forthcoming in your 02/10/2023 I have pressed for some clarity since 03/10/2023

B. Please provide your reference for this subsequent approach

I have waited over 2 months (24/09/2023) for a response in relation to the organisation of your data to enable me to better present the request; to simply it, target the data and ensure I do so by reference to fields you can return a response on.

I am frustrated by the 20/09/2023 response and subsequent attempts to understand and therefore make my requests clearer, easier for you to address. It is not in my interests and there is no intention, to cause burden. 20/09/2023 you wrote

‘Our data are not organised in such a way as to allow us to provide all of this information within the appropriate (cost) limit under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. ‘

C. I do not know how the data is organised, I wish to receive the information about this

‘LOS vehicles are not a mandatory field within our systems. LOS is not always entered within the originator line within our systems, sometimes the data is input using a log number as this is a free text format. ‘

D. I do not understand. A vehicle is reported stolen, there will be a VRM a date of loss and date of notification (likely automatic) this being the bare minimum. The LoS will transfer form a system to PNC (I assume). I cannot comprehend from the response above why information would not be easily available, if only for analytical or report-running processes.

E. If ‘weeding’ is presented in a different manner, not electronically, then this needs to be clarified. But my concern/request relates to ‘automated’ weeding, the removal of a VRM’s PNC LoS register entry which I understand occurs at week 6, day 42, AUTOMATICALLY. I am not seeking a manual search, clearly this would prove onerous.

It is staggering that WMP cannot provide crime statistics; the number of stolen vehicles. I have not sought VRMs.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

6 Attachments

 

Dear Mr Swift,

 

Please see my response to the queries you submitted in relation to my
response under FOI reference 1296A/23. Please accept my apologies for the
delay in providing this additional information, as mentioned in my e-mail
of 31/10/23 where I provided you with confirmation that these were being
dealt with , however we were reliant on the data supplier providing some
of the additional information requested .

 

I have detailed the response to each question with “ our response “ to
make it easier to review each question as you previously mentioned that
the website you use removes all formatting .

 

I trust you find this useful and assists .

 

Query received 27/10

QUERY - Could I trouble you to provide the attachments, pdfs, as
spreadsheets?  Thank you.

OUR RESPONSE - Please see attached.

QUERY - you advise, 'None would have been weeded as Reports are not weeded
for 6 years. **We do not have any unconfirmed Los as we run a procedure
weekly which highlights any not confirmed and we either confirm them or
delete them as they have been recorded in error' and other responses refer
to '6 years'.  I believe there is a misunderstanding which I had hoped my
annotation (06/10/2023) would have assisted with. - The 'weeding' to which
I am referring is the 6-week automated removal from PNC LoS in the event a
VRM is not conformed as LoS.  I have raised at least two such matters with
WMP this year and am concerned it is a problem yet to be addressed. 

OUR RESPONSE - Our data supplier has advised - When a Car is reported
stolen and we add to PNC it does weed after 6 weeks if it is not
confirmed, and years ago we used to wait for it to be crimed before
confirming however this is no longer the case and was changed when our new
system was implemented so the process is now as follows

 

A vehicle is reported stolen

Incident is switched to PNC

Los report added to PNC and automatically confirmed even if not crimed,
hence stays on PNC and does not weed

Every week a report is run to show any reports added in previous week

Any reports still showing unconfirmed are confirmed

 

QUERY - Lastly, I am aware of the argument VRMs are personal and whilst I
disagree (and understand this does not extend to VRMs registered to
'commercial entities'), it is my belief the first 4 characters are
acceptable to disclose and would give me an indication of the vehicle age.

On 31/10/23 you advised - I am not requiring an Internal Review in
relation to the response provided for this question at this stage.  It was
intend to be an observation having noted NPCC guidance on the issue, asked
for this but was without comment.

 

OUR RESPONSE - I can advise that my response to this question remains
unchanged in relation to that this information is exempt by virtue of
Section 40 -Personal Data and examples of relevant decision notices were
provided within the original response.

 

Query received 30/10/23

QUERY - I have received some information, namely

1.vehicles/VRMs*, make and model, reported stolen with the date of loss.

You have provided 41-page table which I have asked for in excel format.

OUR RESPONSE - This is attached as previously advised above.

QUERY - 2. Of the above (at ‘i) those recovered – the date of recovery

You have provided 13-page table which I have asked for in excel format.

I cannot correlate one table with another i.e. I cannot determine which of
the vehicles at ‘1’ are represented at ‘2’, whether they are.  I wish to
understand of ‘1’ which were located and the date thereby enabling me to
determine the recovery figures and the time between theft and finding

OUR RESPONSE - We log vehicles as recovered this is a separate entry, we
do not update stolen records with the status of recovered, we do not cross
reference records, these are different searches and will provide separate
tables of data.

Therefore, if a vehicle is stolen and then recovered, two entries will
show on the system, 1 as stolen and 1 recovered in most cases.

In relation to any other queries in relation to the response issued under
reference 1456A/23 will be dealt separately as these are specific to that
response issued.

 

RIGHT OF APPEAL

 

Your attention is drawn to your right to request a re-examination of your
case under West Midlands Police review procedure, which can be found at:

 

[1]https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revi...

 

[2]www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints

 

Please note that such an appeal must be received within 40 working days of
the date of this correspondence. Any such request received after this time
will only be considered at the discretion of the FOI Unit.

 

 

Many thanks

 

Michelle

 

Michelle Richardson | Freedom of Information
Corporate Communications | West Midlands Police

Working in partnership, making communities safer

[3]If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

[4]twitter icon [5]Instagram Icon [6]YouTube Icon [7]Facebook icon

[8]View all our social network links

 

 

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revi...
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints
3. website
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/
4. http://www.twitter.com/wmpolice
5. http://www.instagram.com/westmidlandspol...
6. http://www.youtube.com/westmidlandspolice
7. http://www.facebook.com/westmidlandspolice
8. Social Networks
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/cont...

Dear Freedom of Information,

Thank you for the spreadsheets, the format is appreciated.

It appears there was a misunderstanding; the weed period now correctly refers to the ‘6 week’ (unconfirmed) period, as opposed to the 6 year one. I could not reconcile the comments about 6 years with weekly reports.

Please can you clarify some aspects of your reply:

1. who is the data supplier referred to?
2. to what new system are you referring?
3. when was the new system implemented?
4. what is meant by a vehicle reported stolen is 'switched to PNC- how does this occur - seamlessly, manually?

you have written the process is:

‘When a Car is reported stolen and we add to PNC it does weed after 6 weeks if it is not confirmed, and years ago we used to wait for it to be crimed before confirming however this is no longer the case and was changed when our new system was implemented so the process is now as follows’

Whilst you refer to ‘years ago’, this request (and associated) stems, in part, from a concern stolen vehicles ARE being weeded off the PNC LoS register; that LoS reports received cease to be recorded stolen on PNC after 6 weeks and that (on more than one occasion) it is we/I who have approached you about this to address the activity as the victim has not been advised. Had it not been for my approach, it appears the VRM would remain ‘clear’ reducing the likelihood of recovery, possibly to nil.

My notifications do not relate to ‘years ago’ but weeks ago – during 2023.

Similarly, you have written:

'Los report added to PNC and automatically confirmed even if not crimed, hence stays on PNC and does not weed'

However, I have highlighted a recent ‘weed’.

5. Please provide the information you possess about this process.

This may go a long way to addressing some other outstanding matters. I note, form the spreadsheets, you can provide detailed crime information and seemingly this could include the VRM (but you cite and exemption).

Possibly you could liaise with those handling other matters to identify the fields utilised to produce the spreadsheet as there are clearly date, make/model and must surely be more.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear West Midlands Police,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of West Midlands Police's handling of my FOI request 'PNC LoS Weeding Numbers & Policy'.

specifically, I am asking for a review of the withholding of the VRM data and ask that this be added to the spreadsheets.

Whilst I do not accept s40 applies to the entire VRM, I note others take a different stance. As I am seeking to obtain an approx. age of the vehicles concerned, as the 6-month indicator is generally the 3rd and 4th numerals of the VRM, am prepared to compromise and restrict my requests to the 1st 4 characters, if still unacceptable, characters 3 & 4. .

I understand this is consistent with NPCC/MPS writing on the subject.

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Dear Mr Swift

The narrative that you have provided below does not constitute a request for information under the FOI Act, as it is not a request for specific recorded information held. It is therefore invalid by virtue of Section 8. The authority does not have to answer your question/s if this would mean creating new information or giving an opinion or judgement that is not already recorded.
Should you wish to progress this enquiry you will need to submit a new request and advise what specific recorded information it is that you require. We require specific search parameters in order that we can allocate the request to the most appropriate department/s to research and retrieve information requested. The authority is not obliged to cross-reference other information, documents, and links etc in order to try and establish the specific information that an applicant requires, and we will not refer back to previous correspondence to answer questions that you may have on it.

Yours Sincerely

Mrs R Williams l FOI Manager
Lloyd House l West Midlands Police
Working in partnership, making communities safer

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Dear Mr Swift

 

FOI Internal Review Reference: 1765A/23

Thank you for your correspondence received 10/11/23 where you requested
West Midlands Police to review its response to your request for
information under reference number 1296A/23.

 

On 22/08/23 you requested the following:

Since 01/01/2022

1.vehicles/VRMs, make and model, reported stolen with the date of loss –
*In the event you are not prepared to release the full VRM., I believe the
first 4 characters can be supplied

2. Of the above (at ‘i) those recovered – the date of recovery.

3.Of the above (at ‘i’) those that were ‘weeded’** with the date of said
weeding –

4. Of the above (at ‘iii’) the data the VRMs were reinstated on PNC LOS

a. The above should determine / identify those currently weeded, the date
they were weeded, but have yet to be reinstated

5. The PNC policy / advice (PNC manual information) relating to recording
a vehicle LOS on PNC and policy relating to ‘weeding’

6. Your constabulary’s policy with regard to recording a vehicle LoS on
PNC and your policy relating to ‘weeding’ – the actions to be taken from
notification of theft, confirmation of the crime, use of PNC 150(?), in
the event of weeding, to finalisation and with whom responsibility rests
during the life of the crime

 

The force responded on 20^th September 2023 and advised that our data are
not organised in such a way as to allow us to provide all of this
information within the appropriate (cost) limit under the Freedom of
Information (FOI) Act, and the cost of providing you with the information
is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond i.e. the
cost of locating and retrieving the information exceeds the ‘appropriate
level’ as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate
Limit) Regulations 2004.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the letter acted
as a Refusal Notice for some parts of the request. We advised that under
Section 16 of the Act we have a duty to provide advice and assistance in
relation to your request and advised what information we may be able to
provide. This was detailed alongside each question for ease of reference.

 

We advised that the VRMs would be exempt by Section 40 – Personal Data. As
detailed in a recent decision notice reference ICO ref: IC-168207-S7L9

 

REQUEST

You have now requested an internal review of the force response on the
following basis:

You are asking for a review of the withholding of the VRM data and ask
that this be added to the spreadsheets.

 

You do not accept s40 applies to the entire VRM and you are seeking to
obtain an approx. age of the vehicles concerned, as the 6-month indicator
is generally the 3rd and 4th numerals of the VRM, You are prepared to
compromise and restrict the requests to the 1st 4 characters, if still
unacceptable, characters 3 & 4

 

RESPONSE

Please note that where an applicant has already requested an internal
review due to dissatisfaction with the handling of their case, they are
not entitled to further review in relation to another/a different aspect
of their case. You have already requested an internal review on 24/09/23
in relation to the response provided to you under reference number
1296A/23, and this was dealt with under reference number 1456A/23. We
provided a response to IR 1456A/ 23 on 02/10/23 and therefore will not be
further reviewing the advice/decision that was given to you under
reference 1296A/23.

 

In order to assist with future submissions for IR, I can advise that with
regards to your reference to the refined request of the provision of the
3rd and 4th numerals of the VRM, please be advised that as these questions
did not form part of your original request they are not subject to review
under the Internal Review process.

Should an applicant be unhappy with a response provided to them under FOI,
they have the right to request a review of the decision made. This will
take the form of an internal review, whereby the information held and the
decision on disclosure will be reviewed to ascertain if it was correct, it
is not a process to determine if additional information is held, and can
be supplied, to that which was originally requested.

 

I hope that this is of assistance.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information
Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9
5AF

Link to their website: [1]FOI and EIR complaints | ICO

[2]Contact us | ICO

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mrs R Williams

FOI Manager

Lloyd House l West Midlands Police

Working in partnership, making communities safer

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/foi-...
2. https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

The invited new request , seeking to understand a response above, is here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Dear Freedom of Information,

10/11/2023 you provided vehicle information - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
WMP recorded make/model under 1,936 listings and for the months of January to June 2023, the total is 7,530 vehicle thefts. However, at https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/car-... you record 8,077 vehicles stolen, a difference of almost 500 vehicles. Please can you explain the discrepancy?

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Dear Mr Swift

 

FOI Request Reference: 1792A/23

Thank you for your requests for information, received 16/11/23 and
20/11/23. As advised previously, we require specific search parameters in
order that we can allocate requests to the most appropriate department/s
to research and retrieve information requested. The authority is not
obliged to cross-reference other information, documents, and links etc in
order to try and establish the specific information that an applicant
requires, and we will not refer back to previous correspondence to answer
questions that you may have on it. Therefore, references and links to
previous correspondence have been removed.

REQUEST 16/11/23

1. the data supplier referred to

2. the name of the new system and if the 'system' is a policy, a copy of
the policy

3. the date the 'system' was implemented and any notes/guidance associated
with its implementation

4. a vehicle reported stolen is 'switched to PNC' and information held
about this process.

5. the date did this 'automatic confirmation' commence i.e. from what date
did the 6-week 'weed' no longer occur

6. the notes and guidance issued about this change of process

 

REQUEST 20/11/23

10/11/2023 you provided vehicle information - WMP recorded make/model
under 1,936 listings and for the months of January to June 2023, the total
is 7,530 vehicle thefts.  However, at you record 8,077 vehicles stolen, a
difference of almost 500 vehicles.   Please can you explain the
discrepancy?

 

RESPONSE

Please be advised that these questions do not constitute a valid request
for information under the FOI Act, as they are not a request for specific
recorded information held. This is invalid by virtue of Section 8. The
authority does not have to answer your question/s if this would mean
creating new information or giving an opinion or judgement that is not
already recorded.

 

I also refer to you my correspondence of 14/11/23, ref 1456A/23, in which
I advised that it is fair for WMP to point out that Section 14 (1) of the
Freedom of Information legislation states that an authority is not obliged
to comply with a request for information if the request is deemed
vexatious. Requests are deemed vexatious if they fit one of more of the
following criteria:

* Complying with the request would impose a significant burden on the
authority

* It is fair to regard the request as obsessive

* The request is harassing to the authority or causing distress to its
staff

* The request is designed to cause disruption or annoyance.

 

You have now submitted multiple requests with numerous overlapping e-mails
and questions, that are submitted before the Public Authority has had an
opportunity to address earlier enquiries. Appropriate advice on this has
been provided on each occasion, however you choose to disregard this. In
continuing to submit requests/correspondence of this type, despite our
advice to the contrary, evidence has been provided of a pattern of
behaviour that has been identified as being obsessive and vexatious, and
we will now apply the above exemption - Section 14(1), in relation to any
further requests that you submit in the same manner. They will not be
responded to.

 

I hope that this is of assistance and clarifies the matter.

 

RIGHT OF APPEAL

Your attention is drawn to your right to request a re-examination of your
case under West Midlands Police review procedure, which can be found at:

 

[1]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...

 

Please note that such an appeal must be received within 40 working days of
the date of this correspondence. Any such request received after this time
will only be considered at the discretion of the FOI Unit.

 

If you require any further information, then please e-mail the FOI Unit.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mrs R Williams l FOI Manager

Lloyd House l West Midlands Police

 

Working in partnership, making communities safer

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...

Dear West Midlands Police,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of West Midlands Police's handling of my FOI request 'PNC LoS Weeding Numbers & Policy'.

I believe this to be a valid request
I have made several overlapping or very similar requests.
I have done so by seeking information
I am not asking questions.
I believe you know what I am asking for.
I am not being assisted
If, as you appear to believe, I am struggling to present my requests in a format you do understand, some hand-holding would be appreciated
You have stated, in a response 'weeding does not occur'
I have explained that it does. I can evidence this and it has arisen in 2023. I am at a loss to understand why facts are being misinterpreted.
The situation is of concern:
a you are correctly placing stolen VRMs to PNC LoS
b these LoS reports are not being confirmed within 6 weeks as a result
c the LoS marker falls from the PNC LoS register, the VRM is no longer recorded as stolen
d however the vehicles are not recovered, they are still stolen
in the instances I have noted during 2023, WMP did not advise the insurer or victim. WMP appear to have taken no action. Had it not been for my approach these VRMs would continue to return ‘clear’ on PNV LoS (possibly at DVLA). The chances of recovery would be greatly reduced if not nil. An insured/victim (if not receiving settlement) would be at a loss, and let down. An insurer, if having made a settlement, would lose the recovery opportunity, and be unlikely to reduce their loss.
The only party benefiting from the conduct is those who steal/handle vehicles. At a time when your crime levels are substantial, recoveries and prosecution low, I would expect my concern and request to be appreciated and handled professionally.
Kindly undertake your review so I can present to the ICO.
In the meantime, I shall monitor further instances of ‘weeding’ to ensure there has been a policy change – which would be after I raised the issue i.e. I hope to have achieved my purpose.

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Freedom of Information, West Midlands Police

Dear Mr Swift

 

FOI Internal Review References: 1867A/23 and 1868A/23

Thank you for your correspondence received 01/12/2023. You have requested
West Midlands Police to review its response to a request/s for information
but have not provided a reference number that the review relates to, what
specific information the review relates to, or your grounds for review.

 

Request Fri 01/12/2023 13:28

[1][email address]

I am writing to request an internal review of West Midlands Police's
handling of my FOI request 'Weeding Process & Cessation'.

I have made several overlapping or very similar requests.

I have done so seeking information

I am not asking questions.

I believe you know what I am asking for.

I am not being assisted

If, as you appear to believe, I am struggling to present my requests in a
format you do understand, some hand-holding would be appreciated. You have
stated, in a response 'weeding does not occur'. I have explained that it
does.  I can evidence this and it has arisen in 2023.  I am at a loss to
understand why facts are being misinterpreted. The situation is of
concern:

a       you are correctly placing stolen VRMs to PNC LoS

b       these LoS reports are not being confirmed within 6 weeks as a
result

c       the LoS marker falls from the PNC LoS register, the VRM is no
longer recorded as stolen

d       however the vehicles are not recovered, they are still stolen

in the instances I have noted during 2023, WMP did not advise the insurer
or victim.  WMP appear to have taken no action.  Had it not been for my
approach these VRMs would continue to return ‘clear’ on PNV LoS (possibly
at DVLA).  The chances of recovery would be greatly reduced if not nil. 
An insured/victim (if not receiving settlement) would be at a loss, and
let down.  An insurer, if having made a settlement, would lose the
recovery opportunity, and be unlikely to reduce their loss.

The only party benefiting from the conduct is those who steal/handle
vehicles.  At a time when your crime levels are substantial, recoveries
and prosecution low, I would expect my concern and request to be
appreciated and handled professionally.

Kindly undertake your review so I can present to the ICO.

In the meantime, I shall monitor further instances of ‘weeding’ to ensure
there has been a policy change – which would be after I raised the issue
i.e. I hope to have achieved my purpose.

 

Request Fri 01/12/2023 14:54

[2][FOI #1017311 email]

I am writing to request an internal review of West Midlands Police's
handling of my FOI request 'PNC LoS Weeding Numbers & Policy'.

I believe this to be a valid request

I have made several overlapping or very similar requests.

I have done so by seeking information

I am not asking questions.

I believe you know what I am asking for.

I am not being assisted

If, as you appear to believe, I am struggling to present my requests in a
format you do understand, some hand-holding would be appreciated. You have
stated, in a response 'weeding does not occur'. I have explained that it
does.  I can evidence this and it has arisen in 2023.  I am at a loss to
understand why facts are being misinterpreted. The situation is of
concern:

a       you are correctly placing stolen VRMs to PNC LoS

b       these LoS reports are not being confirmed within 6 weeks as a
result

c       the LoS marker falls from the PNC LoS register, the VRM is no
longer recorded as stolen

d       however the vehicles are not recovered, they are still stolen

in the instances I have noted during 2023, WMP did not advise the insurer
or victim.  WMP appear to have taken no action.  Had it not been for my
approach these VRMs would continue to return ‘clear’ on PNV LoS (possibly
at DVLA).  The chances of recovery would be greatly reduced if not nil. 
An insured/victim (if not receiving settlement) would be at a loss, and
let down.  An insurer, if having made a settlement, would lose the
recovery opportunity, and be unlikely to reduce their loss.

The only party benefiting from the conduct is those who steal/handle
vehicles.  At a time when your crime levels are substantial, recoveries
and prosecution low, I would expect my concern and request to be
appreciated and handled professionally.

Kindly undertake your review so I can present to the ICO.

In the meantime, I shall monitor further instances of ‘weeding’ to ensure
there has been a policy change – which would be after I raised the issue
i.e. I hope to have achieved my purpose

 

RESPONSE

Your correspondence has been considered and I am not obliged to comply
with Section 1(1) of the Act on this occasion, and am not obliged to try
and supply information as the requests are considered Vexatious under
Section 14(1). This response therefore acts as a refusal notice under the
terms of Section 17(1) of the Act.

 

We have repeatedly advised that we will not cross-reference other
information, documents, and links etc in order to try and establish the
specific information that an applicant requires, and we will not refer
back to previous correspondence to answer questions that you may have on
it. However, you continue to submit the same.

 

You have submitted multiple requests with numerous overlapping e-mails and
questions, that are submitted before the Public Authority has had an
opportunity to address earlier enquiries. Appropriate advice on this has
been provided on each occasion, however you choose to disregard this. In
continuing to submit requests/correspondence of this type, despite our
advice to the contrary, evidence has been provided of a pattern of
behaviour that has been identified as being obsessive and vexatious, and
we are now applying this exemption - Section 14(1).

In relation to any further requests that you submit in the same manner.
They will not be
responded to.

Section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information legislation states that an
authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the
request is deemed vexatious for any of the following reasons:

* It is fair to regard the request as obsessive

* The request is harassing to the authority or causing distress to its
staff

*The request is designed to cause disruption or annoyance

*The request lacks any serious purpose or value

 

In this instance the force regards the submission of a request for a
review, that does not indicate which request the applicant is referring
to, specify the information the review relates to, or the grounds for
review as vexatious. You have also indicated that you have already made
the decision that you will not be satisfied with the response/s that we
provide, as you have already decided to contact the ICO to complain.

 

An obsessive request can be identified where a complainant continues with
a request(s) despite being in possession of other advice, or is still in
consultation over the same issue.

 

I have not reviewed all the correspondence that you have recently
submitted to us but reference the communications listed on just one chain
on the WDTK.com website to evidence our application of Section 14(1):

We responded to your request reference number 1296A/23 and advised that
part of the information was not retrievable within cost, but there was
information that would be available should you refine the request.

Instead you asked for an internal review, this was dealt with under
reference 1456A/23. We advised that the response provided to you explained
that all of the information that you requested was not held in a
retrievable format, and advised what parts of the request this exemption
applied to. Under Section 16 of the Act we advised what information may be
available to you should you wish to refine your request. The relevant
information that we may be able to provide was detailed alongside each
question.

You then contacted us to advise that you would like to continue with the
refined request, but also submitted a further 2 monologues to us that did
not serve any purpose or value in relation to the request we were
progressing.

You also submitted a complaint to the ICO, reference IC-262116-B4K0.

We provided the available information for your refined request 1296A/23.
You then contacted us 5 times in relation to this.

During our contact with you we advised that we noted that we had received
queries and e-mails in relation to the subject matter over the past few
days, and although we aim to provide data and responses to queries where
asked as soon as we can - sending multiple/overlapping queries and e-mails
in a short period can place an administrative burden and can cause
unnecessary delays, especially if the force have not yet responded to the
original queries. The FOI department apply the FOI legislation, therefore
we need to refer to the data supplier to clarify any queries that are
asked. We advised that we would provide a response to your queries as soon
as possible.

We also advised that some of the narrative that you provided does not
constitute a request for information under the FOI Act, as it is not a
request for specific recorded information held. It is therefore invalid by
virtue of Section 8. The authority does not have to answer your question/s
if this would mean creating new information or giving an opinion or
judgement that is not already recorded.
We advised that should you wish to progress an enquiry you will need to
submit a new request and advise what specific recorded information it is
that you require. We require specific search parameters in order that we
can allocate the request to the most appropriate department/s to research
and retrieve information requested. The authority is not obliged to
cross-reference other information, documents, and links etc in order to
try and establish the specific information that an applicant requires, and
we will not refer back to previous correspondence to answer questions that
you may have on it.

You further requested an Internal review.

This IR was recorded under reference number 1765A/23, and you were advised
that where an applicant has already requested an internal review due to
dissatisfaction with the handling of their case, they are not entitled to
further review in relation to another/a different aspect of their case.
You had already requested an internal review in relation to the response
provided to you under reference number 1296A/23, and this was dealt with
under reference number 1456A/23. We advised that we will not be further
reviewing the advice/decision that was given to you under
reference 1296A/23.

You then contacted us a further twice in relation to this, with the latter
being a request for an Internal Review.

During our contact with you I have referred to my previous correspondence,
ref 1456A/23, in which I advised that it is fair for WMP to point out that
Section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information legislation states that an
authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the
request is deemed vexatious. Requests are deemed vexatious if they fit one
of more of the following criteria:

* Complying with the request would impose a significant burden on the
authority

* It is fair to regard the request as obsessive

* The request is harassing to the authority or causing distress to its
staff

* The request is designed to cause disruption or annoyance.

 

These latest correspondence are considered to be in the same pattern as
your previous and are considered as obsessive and designed to cause
disruption and/or annoyance. They are refused by virtue of Section 14(1).

 

If you are not content with the outcome of this, you have the right to
apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

Link to their website: [3]FOI and EIR complaints | ICO

[4]Contact us | ICO

 

However, I note that they have also already issued a Decision Notice in
relation to the complaint that you submitted to them under reference
IC-262116-B4K0, so I am unsure if they will progress another complaint on
the same subject.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mrs R Williams l FOI Manager

Lloyd House l West Midlands Police

 

Working in partnership, making communities safer

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[FOI #1017311 email]
3. https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/foi-...
4. https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/