Police Confidential Reporting Line (3)

The request was partially successful.

Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,

concerning the request below that can be found at

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

On the figures provided and the time estimate for retrieving the information from each file; I would be grateful if you could supply the information requested from the third batch of 106 files i.e the final batch.

yours faithfully

P Swift

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

Please provide the following information since the IPCC introduced the confidential reporting line for police officers and staff.

1. How many reports have been made via this line.
2. What was the outcome for each matter reported via this line

!FOI Requests,

Our Ref : 1002106

15th April 2010

[email address]

Dear Mr Swift ,

Re: Your request

Thank you for your email dated 29th March 2010, which you make a request
for
information which I now confirm receipt of.

I would like to inform you that there will be a delay in responding to
your request.
The reason for this delay is because the IPCC has over recent months
seen an increase
in the number of information requests it receives and this has in effect
caused a
delay in responding to requests.

I would like to assure you that your request is being processed and once
a decision
has been finalised you will be contacted. I would like to apologies for
the delay and
hope that this does not cause you any inconvenience.

Yours sincerely

Athena Cass
Freedom of Information Team
Independent Police Complaints Commission

show quoted sections

Please provide the following information since the IPCC introduced
the confidential reporting line for police officers and staff.

1. How many reports have been made via this line.
2. What was the outcome for each matter reported via this line

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #31702 email]

Is [IPCC request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Independent Police Complaints Commission? If so please
contact us using this form:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/contact

If you find WhatDoTheyKnow useful as an FOI officer, please ask
your web manager to suggest us on your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

Dear !FOI Requests,

I anticipate receiving the data by 28th April. you reference to an increase of requests in 'recent months' is hackneyed and appears likely false;you have been using this excuse for a considerable period.

Yours sincerely,

P Swift

Dear !FOI Requests,

this is unacceptable. I am concerned that the IPCC fails to comply with law. I also do not accept your excuse that the "IPCC has over recent months
seen an increase in the number of information requests it receives". this is a hackneyed reply, one that appears to have been used for many months, it is hardly 'recent' and suggests you have made little or an ineffectual attempt to address the situation.

Yours sincerely,

P Swift

cc casework[@]ico.gsi.gov.uk

Dear !FOI Requests,

I wish to complain about the delay which is unacceptable.

Yours sincerely,

P Swift

P Swift left an annotation ()

Information Commissioner's Office,

I refer to my FOIA request of the IPCC the history of which can be found at:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/c/85ylrbje...

I have not received the information requested in the time allowed by law.

I note, by reference to the whatdotheyknow site that the IPCC are a repeat offender; it appears they habitually fail to address FOIA requests in accordance with the law.

I wish to complain about their failings in this instance

Yours faithfully

P Swift

Phil Johnston,

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Swift,
I refer to your e-mail of 29th March (as below).

Please find attached to this e-mail my response to your request,
together with the table of data referred to in the final section of the
decision letter.

Philip Johnston
IPCC

show quoted sections

P Swift left an annotation ()

to IPCC from ICO:

15 June 2010

Case Reference Number FS50310023

Your Ref: 1002106

Dear Sir/Madam

Information request from Mr Philip Swift (the requester)

The Information Commissioner has received a complaint from Mr Swift stating that having made an information request on 29 March 2010 no response had been received. We attach a copy of this request for your information.

It is clear from the information at the following link to the What Do They Know website that a response has now been provided to Mr Swift:

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

As you will be aware, a public authority in receipt of such a request has a duty to deal with them promptly and, in any event, within 20 working days. Although there are some exceptions, particularly where additional time is required to consider the public interest in disclosing exempt information; none of these exceptions appear to apply in this case.

The Commissioner recognises that in this particular instance you have acknowledged the breach, apologised for the delay and provided a response to Mr Swift. He does not consider, therefore, that there is any strong public interest in issuing a decision notice. He does, however, draw your attention to his published guidance on this matter (http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...)

Finally you should be aware that the Information Commissioner often receives requests for copies of the letters we send and receive when dealing with casework. Not only are we obliged to deal with these in accordance with the access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA), it is in the public interest that we are open, transparent and accountable for the work that we do.

However, whilst we want to disclose as much information as we reasonably can, there will be occasions where full disclosure would be wrong. It is also important that the disclosures we make do not undermine the confidence and trust in the Commissioner of those who correspond with him.

If you reply to this letter, I would be grateful if you would indicate whether any of the information you provide in connection with this matter is confidential, or for any other reason should not be disclosed to anyone who requests it. I should make clear that simply preferring that the information is withheld may not be enough to prevent disclosure. You should have a good reason why this information should not be disclosed to anyone else and explain this to us clearly and fully.

I have also notified our Good Practice and Enforcement Team of this breach, which has been recorded on our system. You will appreciate that in the event of other, similar complaints, the Commissioner may consider taking enforcement action under s.52 of the Act.

I have copied this letter to the requester.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Dixon
Case Officer
FoI Case Reception Unit
Information Commissioner’s Office

P Swift left an annotation ()

15 June 2010

Case Reference Number FS50310023

Dear Mr Swift

Your information request to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

Thank you for your correspondence dated 29 April 2010 in which you complain about the IPCC’s failure to respond to your information request.

It is clear from the link you have provided to the What Do They Know website that the IPCC has now responded to your request although this was not within 20 working days.

Although a clear breach of the Act did occur, I am satisfied that the authority has recognised this, apologised for the delay and responded to the request. In this particular case, therefore, the Commissioner does not consider that serving a formal decision notice would serve any strong public interest. I have, however, written to the public authority reminding it of its responsibilities. I attach a copy of my letter for your information.

I have also notified our Good Practice and Enforcement Team of this breach, which has been recorded on our system.

As you will see even though the Commissioner does not intend to issue a formal notice in this case, your concerns have been taken seriously. Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the Information Commissioner.

This case has now been closed with the delayed response element showing as ‘withdrawn’ on our records. I have attached a fact sheet explaining our complaint handling procedures. Please contact our Helpline on 0303 123 1113 if you require any further assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Dixon
Case Officer
FoI Case Reception Unit
Information Commissioner’s Office

P Swift left an annotation ()

To ICO
casework[@]ico.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Sir,

Re the IPCC

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

The matter as not been taken seriously.

How could the IPCC not ‘recognise’ the clear breach of the Act? They only need to be able to count to 20 working days! Since when has an apology for recidivist behavior been acceptable? How many apologies does the ICO consider to be acceptable? At what point are the hackeyed excuses for the IPCC’s knowing breach of the law unacceptable?

The IPCC are repeat offenders who appear to have done nothing to resolve the situation.; they blatantly and continually disregard the FOIA and to this day do nothing more than apologize for the delays. You will find an irony in some of the requests at the whatdotheyknow site – requests for information about their delays which are the subject of delayed responses!

The IPCC are apparently attempting to do something about the situation. What? They do not appear to be advertising or staff for the position …. Despite the delays running for what app[ears to be about a year. why should they when the ICO permits such breaches?

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

ICO have today issued an Enforcement action notice against the IPCC:

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

P Swift left an annotation ()

to the ICO:

thank you.

for the ease of reference, I have cut and pasted the notice below

P Swift

Reference: ENF0301823
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 52)
Enforcement Notice
Date: 11 June 2010
Public Authority: Independent Police Complaints Commission
Address: 90 High Holborn London WC1V 6BH
Summary
The Information Commissioner wrote to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (the “IPCC”) and asked it to provide details of its performance in relation to the handling of requests for information. This action was prompted by a letter from the IPCC which stated that it was experiencing difficulties in responding to requests for information under section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). The IPCC confirmed to the Commissioner that it had a backlog of 72 requests, 69 of which were ‘out of time’. In addition to this backlog, the Commissioner was aware that he had received nine complaints under section 50 of the Act which identified a failure to respond to requests for information within the statutory time limits, four of which remained outstanding at the time of drafting this notice. In relation to each request identified within these section 50 complaints, the Commissioner finds the IPCC to be in breach of section 10(1) of the Act and instructs it to provide the information requested or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the Act.
The Commissioner’s Role
1. Where the Commissioner is satisfied that a public authority has failed to comply with any of the requirements of Part I of the Act he may, under section 52 of the Act, serve the authority with a notice (referred to in this Act as an “enforcement notice”). This notice will explain what the public authority has failed to do, set out the Commissioner's reasons for reaching his conclusions and specify the steps the authority needs to take in order to comply with the Act.
Reference: ENF0301823
The Investigation
Chronology
2. On 17 March 2010 the Commissioner wrote to the IPCC setting out his concerns about its compliance with section 10(1) of the Act. The letter explained that the ICO recognised that unforeseen growth in the volume of requests submitted cannot always be factored into authorities’ handling procedures, and further, that Freedom of Information (FOI) must take its place amongst competing demands on public authorities’ resources. However, it was explained that as the regulator, the ICO would be unable to accept repeated or systemic non-compliance with the Act or non-conformity to the associated Codes of Practice.
3. In addition to setting out the Commissioner’s concerns the letter of the 17 March invited the IPCC to provide clarification on:

the extent of the backlog;

whether a target date had been set for its elimination;

whether the IPCC was handling new requests separately from those within the backlog;
4. On 14 April 2010 the IPCC responded to the Commissioner, confirming the following:

that there had been a 40% increase in the number of requests when compared with the same time last year;

there were currently 72 outstanding requests (backlog), of which 69 were ‘out of time’;

the date of receipt for the oldest request was 15 May 2009, with the next oldest dated 1 December 2009; the IPCC did however clarify that the May 2009 request was an exceptional case relating to a high profile investigation;

the present target date for elimination of the backlog was the end of September 2010;

the weekly target for allocation of cases is presently two FOI requests per team member, per week and the ratio of allocation for requests is one from the backlog and one ‘still in time’ request.
5. On 24 May 2010 the Commissioner wrote to the IPCC and informed it of his intention to issue an Enforcement Notice on 11 June 2010.
Reference: ENF0301823
6. On 4 June 2010 the Commissioner received a letter from the IPCC which reaffirmed its intention to clear its backlog of overdue requests by September 2010. The IPCC also confirmed that a number of complaints which the Commissioner had identified as being outstanding had been addressed.
Conclusions
7. The IPCC has repeatedly failed to respond to requests for information within the statutory time limits. Further the Commissioner is concerned that the timescale proposed by the IPCC for the elimination of its backlog of overdue requests may not be met, unless the authority is compelled to take such action by way of an Enforcement Notice.
Nature of Non-Compliance
8. In relation to overdue requests in its backlog and requests identified in section 50 complaints to the Commissioner, the IPCC is in breach of section 10(1) of the Act.
Steps Required
9. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the Act:
In relation to each overdue request which the IPCC has identified as ‘out of time’, the Commissioner requires the authority to:

Respond to each of the requests by 30 September 2010
In respect of the four section 50 complaints identified in the confidential annex to this Notice, and which remain outstanding, within 35 calendar days of the date of this notice the Commissioner requires the IPCC to:

Provide the information requested or,

Issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the Act.
Reference: ENF0301823
Failure to comply
10. Failure to comply with the steps described above may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Right of Appeal
11. The IPCC has the right to appeal against this enforcement notice to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Information about the appeals process may be obtained from:
First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)
GRC & GRP Tribunals,
PO Box 9300,
Arnhem House,
31, Waterloo Way,
LEICESTER,
LE1 8DJ
Tel: 0845 600 0877
Fax: 0116 249 4253
Email: informationtribunal@tribunals.gsi.gov.uk.
Website: www.informationtribunal.gov.uk
Any Notice of Appeal should be served on the Tribunal within 28 calendar days of the date on which this enforcement notice is served.
Dated the 11 day of June 2010
Signed ………………………………………………..
Graham Smith
Deputy Commissioner
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Legal Annex
Reference: ENF0301823
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000
(PART IV, SECTION 52)
RIGHTS OF APPEAL AGAINST NOTICES SERVED BY THE COMMISSIONER
1. Section 57(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives a public authority upon whom an enforcement notice or an information notice has been served a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (the “Tribunal”) against the notice.
2. If you decide to appeal and if the Tribunal considers:
a) that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law; or
b) to the extent that the notice involved an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner, that he ought to have exercised his discretion differently,
the Tribunal will allow the appeal or substitute such other notice as could have been made by the Commissioner. In any other case the Tribunal will dismiss the appeal.
3. You may bring an appeal by serving a notice of appeal on the Tribunal at the following address:
GRC & GRP Tribunals
PO Box 9300
Arnhem House
31 Waterloo Way
Leicester
LE1 8DJ
a) The notice of appeal should be served on the Tribunal within 28 calendar days of the date on which notice of the Commissioner's notice was served on or given to you.
b) If your notice of appeal is late the Tribunal will not accept it unless it is of the opinion that it is just and right to do so by reason of special circumstances.
c) If you send your notice of appeal by post to the Tribunal, either in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service, it will be treated as having been served on the Tribunal on the date on which it is received for dispatch by the Post Office.
Reference: ENF0301823
4. The notice of appeal should state:
a) your name and address;
b) the notice which you are disputing and the date on which the notice was served on or given to you;
c) the grounds of your appeal;
d) whether you consider that you are likely to wish a hearing to be held by the Tribunal or not;
e) if you have exceeded the 28 day time limit mentioned above the special circumstances which you consider justify the acceptance of your notice of appeal by the Tribunal; and
f)
an address for service of notices and other documents on you.
In addition, a notice of appeal may include a request for an early hearing of the appeal and the reasons for that request.
5. By virtue of section 52(3), an enforcement notice may not require any of the provisions of the notice to be complied with before the end of the period in which an appeal can be brought and, if such an appeal is brought, the notice need not be complied with pending the determination or withdrawal of the appeal.
6. The statutory provisions concerning appeals to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) are contained in sections 57, 58, 59 and 60 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 Statutory Instrument 2009 No. 1976 (L.20).