Police Evidence Gathering Unit - policies and procedures

The request was successful.

Dear Humberside Police,

I would be most grateful if Humberside Police could provide full and complete copies, including any associated background documents, of their policies and procedures relating to the processing, storage and retention of personal data this is obtained by your organisation's 'Police Evidence Gathering Unit' during the execution of a search warrant within a residential dwelling.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving the requested information shortly.

Yours faithfully,

Colin Webb

Information Compliance, Humberside Police

Thank you for your request for information.  If you are requesting
information under the Freedom of Information Act or the Environmental
Information Regulations you will receive a response within the statutory
20 working days.

We aim to respond to any other enquiries within 20 working days. Further
information on requesting information can be found on this [1]link.

 

Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication.
To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet
Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the
addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be
unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy,
print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this
transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender
immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks
e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct
their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions
expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your
co-operation. Humberside Police

References

Visible links
1. http://www.humberside.police.uk/your-rig...

Boynton, Sian 8066, Humberside Police

2 Attachments

Your Ref:
Our Ref:F-2018-02950

20 December, 2018

Dear Mr. Webb,

Thank you for your request for information dated 22 November, 2018 regarding policies and procedures relating to the processing, storage and retention of personal data during the execution of a search warrant within a residential dwelling..

This is to inform you that all information relating to your request has been considered and a relevant response has been attached.

Should any further information be requested regarding this topic, a separate request will need to be submitted.

If I can be of any further assistance on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Sian Boynton
Information Compliance Officer
Humberside Police

Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication. To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy, print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your co-operation. Humberside Police

Dear Humberside Police,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Humberside Police's handling of my FOI request 'Police Evidence Gathering Unit - policies and procedures'.

My request states:

"I would be most grateful if Humberside Police could provide full and complete copies, including any associated background documents, of their policies and procedures relating to the processing, storage and retention of personal data this is obtained by your organisation's 'Police Evidence Gathering Unit' during the execution of a search warrant within a residential dwelling. "

The response from Humberside Police states:

"Please see attached Humberside Police Property Management Policy."

However, the attached Humberside Police Property Management Policy does not contain any information relating to the processing, storage and retention of personal data that is obtained by your organisation's 'Police Evidence Gathering Unit' during the execution of a search warrant within a residential dwelling.

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,

Colin Webb

Information Compliance, Humberside Police

Thank you for your request for information.  If you are requesting
information under the Freedom of Information Act or the Environmental
Information Regulations you will receive a response within the statutory
20 working days.

We aim to respond to any other enquiries within 20 working days. Further
information on requesting information can be found on this [1]link.

 

Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication.
To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet
Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the
addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be
unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy,
print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this
transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender
immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks
e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct
their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions
expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your
co-operation. Humberside Police

References

Visible links
1. http://www.humberside.police.uk/your-rig...

Livingston, Adele 9353, Humberside Police

2 Attachments

Mr Webb,
 
Please find attached our response to your request for an internal review.
 
A copy of this will also be forwarded to the Information Commissioners’
Office in respect of Case Reference Number FS50817217
 
 
Kind regards
 
 
Adele Livingston
Information Compliance Officer
Data Protection/Freedom of Information
 
 
 
Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication.
To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet
Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the
addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be
unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy,
print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this
transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender
immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks
e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct
their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions
expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your
co-operation. Humberside Police

Dear Livingston, Adele 9353,

Thank you for your reply.

Within your response, Humberside Police state:

“Furthermore, Humberside Police does not have department which goes by the name of 'Police Evidence Gathering Unit'.”

Obviously, this particular aspect of the response is pivotal to the information requested.

However, within his pocket notebook entry made on 22/08/2018, Inspector Melville Christie records the following information relating to a search of a residential property on that particular day:

“10.30 Executed search warrant at [REDACTED] home address of [REDACTED], present were [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] allowed entry and cooperated fully with search - filmed officers. Police Evidence Gathering Unit also on scene and filmed.”

It is explicitly clear from Inspector Christie's formal record that Humberside Police do have a Police Evidence Gathering Unit who also must retain and exercise pertinent policy and procedures surrounding the overt filming of occupiers, their home, outbuildings, land, vehicles and personal possessions during the execution of a search warrant.

These policies and procedures must accord with the relevant and lawful requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Law Enforcement Directive (LED), and therefore fully explain as to how the Police Evidence Gathering Unit can process personal data in such circumstances and also disclose the data subjects rights in relation to that processing.

The attached document titled: 'Records Management Policy' is a policy that primarily covers the management of operational policing information in line with the 2005 Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MoPI). The code specifically indicates that a key role in collection of information must be set and this is met by taking account of relevant policing codes, guidance, policies and procedures including those arising from the relevant and lawful requirements of the GDPR and the LED, as discussed above.

Resultantly, I do not accept the response from Humberside Police in this matter since it is factually inaccurate and they continue to persist in their failure to provide a copy of the requested information.

Furthermore, I am also appalled by the explanation by Humberside Police relating to their delay in responding. A brief informative setting out a time when they intended to make a response may have precluded a request for an internal review and subsequent intervention of the Information Commissioner. Simply discarding statutory compliance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is contemptible conduct from an organisation which purports to be a law enforcement agency.

A copy of my reply will also be forwarded to the Information Commissioners’ Office.

Yours sincerely,

Colin Webb

Livingston, Adele 9353, Humberside Police

2 Attachments

Good afternoon,

Please find attached further response.

A copy of this will also be forwarded to the Information Commissioners’ Office in respect of Case Reference Number FS50817217

Kind regards

Adele Livingston
Information Compliance Officer

show quoted sections

Dear Livingston, Adele 9353,

Thank you for your reply and attachment.

However, my request states:

"... policies and procedures relating to the processing, storage and retention of personal data that is obtained by your organisation's 'Police Evidence Gathering Unit' during the execution of a search warrant within a residential dwelling."

The SOP policy provided by Humberside Police does not indicate any information in relation to the specific context of my request.

Consequently, I would be grateful if Humberside Police could confirm or deny this information is held.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

Colin Webb

Colin Webb left an annotation ()

Reference: FS50817217

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Decision notice

Date: 30 July 2019

Public Authority: Chief Constable of Humberside Police
Address: Humberside Police HQ
Priory Road
Hull
HU5 5SF

Complainant: Colin Webb
Address:

Decision (including any steps ordered)
1. The complainant has requested information about the management of personal information during the execution of a search warrant from Humberside Police (“HP”). HP provided some information and maintained that further information was not held.

2. During the Commissioner’s investigation HP identified a document which had not previously been provided to the complainant. The Commissioner requires HP to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
 Disclose the draft Standard Operating Procedure 2014 identified to the Commissioner by email on 18 July 2019.

3. In failing to disclose this document within 20 working days HP has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA.

4. In respect of any further information which may be held, the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, no further information is held.

5. HP must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply 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.

Request and response
6. On 21 November 2018 the complainant wrote to HP, via the “What do they know?” website, and requested information in the following terms:
“I would be most grateful if Humberside Police could provide full and complete copies, including any associated background documents, of their policies and procedures relating to the processing, storage and retention of personal data this is obtained by your organisation's 'Police Evidence Gathering Unit' [PEGU] during the execution of a search warrant within a residential dwelling”.
7. HP responded on 20 December 2018 and provided a copy of its Property Management policy.
8. The complainant requested an internal review on 21 December 2018, adding that this policy did not seem relevant to his request.
9. Despite the Commissioner’s intervention, to date no internal review has been provided.

Scope of the case
10. The complainant initially contacted the Commissioner on 26 January 2019 to complain about the lack of response to his request for an internal review. The Commissioner wrote to HP about this on 14 February 2019, asking for an internal review to be provided within 20 working days.
11. On 16 March 2019, the complainant wrote to the Commissioner again to advise that an internal review remained outstanding.
12. On 9 April 2019, the Commissioner wrote to HP to HP to commence an investigation, saying that this was being done without an internal review due to the length of time taken.
13. On 8 May 2019, during the Commissioner’s investigation, HP wrote to the complainant and provided an internal review. It advised him:
“To provide full documents and any associated documents relating to processing, storage and retention of personal data would be deemed excessive and could be argued the original request could have been exempt under s.12
Furthermore, Humberside Police does not have a department which goes by the name of ‘Police Evidence Gathering Unit’.
In a bid to assist with your request further, I have liaised with the Records Management Unit who have provided the following Records Management Policy (attached) which directly relates to the processing, storage and retention of personal data, including that obtained as ‘Intelligence’, which would possibly occur as a result of a search warrant executed”.
14. On 9 May 2019, the complainant wrote to HP and disputed this response in respect of it having no Police Evidence Gathering Unit (“PEGU”). He stated that he had a copy of one of its Inspector’s pocket notebooks (“PNB”) and that an entry in it dated 22 August 2018 recorded that a search warrant had been executed at an address and “Police Evidence Gathering Unit also on scene and filmed”. He added:
“It is explicitly clear from Inspector [name removed]'s formal record that Humberside Police do have a Police Evidence Gathering Unit who also must retain and exercise pertinent policy and procedures surrounding the overt filming of occupiers, their home, outbuildings, land, vehicles and personal possessions during the execution of a search warrant”.
(The complainant also provided a copy of the notebook entry both to HP and the Commissioner).
15. Following HP’s response of 8 May 2019, on 13 May 2019 the Commissioner wrote to the complainant for his views, also asking for any remaining grounds of complaint.
16. The complainant responded on 13 May 2019 and advised that, as evidenced in the PNB entry, HP clearly does have a PEGU. He also considered that HP must have a policy covering the filming of a person / family at their home. He added: “Consequently, I am requesting full and complete copies, including any associated background documents, of HP's policies and procedures relating to the processing, storage and retention of personal data that is obtained by the PEGU during the execution of a search warrant within a residential dwelling.
Following HP's recent response, I have since discovered that other police organisations have a 'Evidence Gathering Team' and not a PEGU. In the circumstances, I believe it would highly desirable if HP could speak with Inspector [name removed] to establish whether his description of the PEGU is factually accurate”.
If indeed it is simply an oversight by Inspector [name removed], then I believe HP have been pedantic in this matter surrounding the description of the department concerned and as of a consequence, they also failed in their duty to provide advice and assistance to me under the Act by requesting clarification from me in this regard”.
17. On 5 June 2019, following further liaison with the Commissioner, HP wrote to the complainant again with further details. It explained that it had found a policy which was more specific to his request and provided this to him, albeit it post-dated his request. Regarding the use of “PEGU” it explained that it had liaised with the named Inspector who had confirmed that he had used “old terminology” rather than “EGT” (Evidence Gathering Trained). It added that EGT does not refer to a unit or department but rather specifically trained Officers from across the Force.
18. On 6 June 2019, the Commissioner wrote to the complainant again to ascertain whether or not he was now satisfied with this latest response. He responded, on the same day saying that:
“Unfortunately, the information provided by Humberside Police does not reflect the specific context of my request, i.e. the use of audio visual recording equipment during the execution of a search warrant within a residential dwelling… ”
19. On 11 June 2019, the Commissioner asked HP whether there was any predecessor to the policy it had found, as the current one had been written after the request was made. On 18 July 2019, HP advised her:
“I have liaised further with the author of the current Evidence Gathering Teams policy who advised he had written something similar in 2014, however had [sic] not been signed off as Force Policy. This was stored in his personal folder, therefore not retrievable/searchable on the original check. In respect of openness I attach a copy of this ‘predecessor’, however note it was never a Force Policy, rather a SOP at local level”.
20. The Commissioner will consider whether or not HP has provided all the information held below. She has also commented on the length of time to undertake an internal review in “Other matters” at the end of this notice.
21. The Commissioner’s duty is to decide whether a request for information made to a public authority has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Part 1 of the FOIA. The FOIA is to do with transparency of information held by public authorities. It gives an individual the right to access recorded information (other than their own personal data) held by public authorities. The FOIA does not require public authorities to generate information or to answer questions, provide explanations or give opinions, unless this is recorded information that they already hold.

Reasons for decision
Section 1 – general right of access
22. Section 1 of the FOIA states that any person making a request for information is entitled to be informed by the public authority whether it holds that information and, if so, to have that information communicated to him.
Draft Standard Operating Procedure 2014
23. The Commissioner will initially consider the document which was located during her investigation (see paragraph 19), which has been located but not disclosed to the complainant.
24. HP provided the Commissioner with a copy of this document which was written prior to the “Deployment of Evidence Gathering Teams (EGT) within Humberside” policy (the disclosed policy which actually post-dated this request). It advised that it had:
“ … liaised further with the author of the current Evidence Gathering Teams policy who advised he had written something similar in 2014, however had [sic] not been signed off as Force Policy. This was stored in his personal folder, therefore not retrievable / searchable on the original check. In respect of openness I attach a copy of this ‘predecessor’, however note it was never a Force Policy, rather a SOP at local level. The current Policy was written as a result of a request to purchase SD [secure digital] cards for the EGT CCTV system, in which the requirement for the Policy was raised by Information Security Manager, and the attached document formed its basis”.
25. The Commissioner notes that this draft document has not been provided to the complainant. Furthermore, she enquired as to whether or not it was considered suitable for disclosure and was told:
“There is no reason not to disclose. However, this was not signed off or integrated as Force Policy and was stored in an Officers personal folder, therefore not previously retrieved. It does however fall under ‘associated documents’ as was the basis for the current policy already disclosed”.

Any further information
26. In this case, the complainant suspects that HP holds information from which it could answer the request. HP’s position is that it does not. In cases where there is some dispute about the amount of information located by a public authority, and the amount of information that a complainant believes might be held, the Commissioner – following the lead of a number of First-tier Tribunal decisions – applies the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. In essence, the Commissioner will determine whether it is likely, or unlikely, that the public authority holds information relevant to the complainant’s request.
27. The Commissioner will consider the complainant’s evidence and arguments as well as the actions taken by the public authority to check whether the information is held, and any other reasons offered by the public authority to explain why the information is not held. She will also consider any reason why it is inherently likely or unlikely that information is not held. For clarity, the Commissioner is not expected to prove categorically whether the information is held, she is only required to make a judgement on whether the information is held on the civil standard of proof of the balance of probabilities.
28. In respect of the processing, storage and retention of personal data, HP has already disclosed its Records Management Policy. The Commissioner therefore enquired whether this the only policy / procedure which HP holds which would specifically cover this. She was advised:
“Having liaised with Records Management manager and Policy Manager, it has been agreed this is the policy which would cover the processing, storage and retention of personal data in this circumstance”.
29. In respect of searches for information which have been undertaken, HP advised the Commissioner that it had:
“Searched the intranet and our docstore as this is where all policies are ‘held’.
Called/Emailed Insp [name removed] as mentioned in the original disclosure for any background on EGT.
Called the Records Management Dept, also spoke to Records Supervisor (MoPI) [Management of Police Information] in relation to processing, storage and retention of personal data. It was agreed the policy already disclosed was correct. In relation to background documents for MoPI it was advised this was not stand alone to Humberside Police and suggested [the complainant] would have access to MoPI documents via College of Policing website.
Emailed the author of the current policy (already disclosed), to find any background information.
Emailed Information Security Manager who co-wrote the current policy.
Emailed Policy Manager in relation to storage of any other versions/back ground documents.
Emailed Senior Information Compliance Officer”.
30. In respect of the comment above relating to background documents for MoPI, ie the Records Management Policy which has been disclosed, the Commissioner notes that HP considers that more information might be held by the College of Policing. However, whilst this may not have been made apparent to the complainant, the Commissioner notes that he does not consider that the documents provided to him answer his request, therefore any background information which may be held by the College of Policing is unlikely to be of specific use to him.

The Commissioner’s conclusion
31. When, as in this case, the Commissioner receives a complaint that a public authority has not disclosed some or all of the information that a complainant believes it holds, it is seldom possible to prove with absolute certainty that it holds no relevant information. However, as set out in the paragraphs, above, the Commissioner is required to make a finding on the balance of probabilities.
32. Clearly the identified document falls within the scope of the request and should have been disclosed to the complainant. HP is therefore now required to provide that to him.
33. In respect of any further information which may be held, the Commissioner considers that HP contacted the relevant parties to consider whether or not any information was held in respect of the request. Based on the information provided above, with particular regard to the comment that a policy was seen to be required when purchasing SD cards so obviously did not at that stage exist, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, no further recorded information within the scope of the request is held. She is therefore satisfied that HP has complied with the requirements of section 1 of the FOIA in this case.

Section 10 - time for compliance
34. Section 1(1) of the FOIA states that an individual who asks for information is entitled to be informed whether the information is held and, if the information is held, to have that information communicated to them.
35. Section 10(1) of the FOIA states that on receipt of a request for information a public authority should respond to the applicant within 20 working days.
36. From the information provided to the Commissioner in this case it is evident that HP did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA. In this case HP has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) by failing to disclose the document identified at paragraph 19 above within 20 working days.
Other matters
37. Although they do not form part of this notice the Commissioner wishes to highlight the following matters of concern.
Internal review
38. The Commissioner cannot consider the amount of time it took a public authority to complete an internal review in a decision notice because such matters are not a formal requirement of the FOIA. Rather they are matters of good practice which are addressed in the code of practice issued under section 45 of the FOIA.
39. Part VI of the section 45 Code of Practice states that it is desirable practice that a public authority should have a procedure in place for dealing with complaints about its handling of requests for information, and that the procedure should encourage a prompt determination of the complaint. The Commissioner considers that these internal reviews should be completed as promptly as possible. While no explicit timescale is laid down by the FOIA, the Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review. In exceptional circumstances it may take longer but in no case should the time taken exceed 40 working days; it is expected that this will only be required in complex and voluminous cases, which this request was not. The Commissioner is therefore concerned that it took over 4 months for HP to conduct an internal review in this case.
40. The Commissioner will use intelligence gathered from individual cases to inform her insight and compliance function. This will align with the goal in her draft Openness by Design strategy1 to improve standards of accountability, openness and transparency in a digital age. The Commissioner aims to increase the impact of FOIA enforcement activity through targeting of systemic non-compliance, consistent with the approaches set out in her Regulatory Action Policy2.
1 https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/c...
2 https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/d...

Right of appeal
41. Either party has the right to appeal against this decision 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,
LEICESTER,
LE1 8DJ
Tel: 0300 1234504
Fax: 0870 739 5836
Email: grc@justice.gov.uk
Website: www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/general-reg...
42. If you wish to appeal against a decision notice, you can obtain information on how to appeal along with the relevant forms from the Information Tribunal website.
43. Any Notice of Appeal should be served on the Tribunal within 28 (calendar) days of the date on which this decision notice is sent.

Signed

Senior Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Livingston, Adele 9353, Humberside Police

1 Attachment

Good afternoon,

Further to your email of 16th August, I have forwarded to the whatdotheyknow address, as requested.

Please accept my apology for the delay in forwarding I was on leave during the period.

Kind regards,

Adele Livingston
Information Compliance Officer

show quoted sections

Dear Humberside Police,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Humberside Police's handling of my FOI request 'Police Evidence Gathering Unit - policies and procedures'.

Within the copy of the SOP provided by Humberside Police, section 8 of it states:

"Reasonable steps must always be taken to provide information concerning the purpose of the filming. Where signs have been displayed, or a local media campaign has taken place, this may be sufficient where the filming is of a general nature (e.g. outside a pub or in a shopping precinct). Where, however, the filming is focused on an individual or group of individuals, it will be necessary to provide the individual(s) concerned with the information personally. This information may be provided verbally and/or by way of written notice. Appendix A to this SOP has been designed for this purpose."

However, 'Appendix A' is missing from the copy of the SOP provided.

Consequently, I would be grateful if a full and complete copy of the SOP is now provided to me, which also includes a full and complete copy of the information contained within 'Appendix A'.

Additionally, I would also be grateful if full details of the SOP's adoption/review dates and associated details are also provided to me.`

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,

Colin Webb

Information Compliance, Humberside Police

1 Attachment

Thank you for your email to the Information Compliance Unit – Humberside
Police.

 

If you are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act,
you will receive a response within the statutory 20 working days.

 

If you are requesting information under Subject Access (The Data
Protection Act) you will receive a response within the statutory 28 days.
Please note we require two forms of ID which show your name, date of
birth, current living address and a signature, for us to process your
application. 

 

We aim to respond to any other enquiries within 20 working days. Further
information on requesting information can be found on the following link -
[1]https://www.humberside.police.uk/your-ri....

 

If you are chasing up a submission, please note we are currently
experiencing a high volume of requests and we are working to respond as
soon as possible.

 

We appreciate your patience in the matter.

 

 

[2]Description: Description: Description:
cid:image001.png@01D52A70.2FA8E800

Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication.
To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet
Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the
addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be
unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy,
print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this
transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender
immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks
e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct
their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions
expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your
co-operation. Humberside Police

References

Visible links
1. https://www.humberside.police.uk/your-ri...

Suddaby, Philip 9625, Humberside Police

Good Morning and thank you your email.

I have looked into the request on your behalf and note that the document you are writing about was sent out to you on 16 August 2019. I would like to point out that any request for an internal review must be made within 40 days of the reply.

Unfortunately this email has been sent out some 60 days after the answer and as such falls outside of the parameters we are asked to work to. I note from the file that the information Commissioners office has been involved in this case and as a matter of good will we have looked into this case again and carried out an internal review as per your request.

The document to which you refer was supplied at the request of the ICO to yourself and you were informed at the time that the document was a draft document written some 5 years ago and had never been adopted as force policy. It therefore effectively never officially existed.

As the document was only a draft it has errors and possible omissions and we have supplied to you everything that currently exists. There is no reference in the document to an appendix B though one exists. We feel it a reasonable assumption that Appendix B is actually Appendix A.

There is therefore no further detail on the policy that we can release.

The result of the internal review therefore is that the everything that can be released has been, and that the initial response stands as complying with the requirements place on Humberside Police by relevant legislation.

I trust you will understand that we cannot release a part of a document to you that has never existed.

Phil
Information Compliance

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Suddaby,

Thank you for your response.

Yours sincerely,

Colin Webb

Suddaby, Philip 9625, Humberside Police

I am not back in the office until 0700 hours on Wednesday 6 November 2019.
I will attend to it your email on my return.

For urgent Unison related matters please contact Tony or Ellie in the
Unison Office at Osborne Street

 

Thank You.

 

Phil

Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication.
To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet
Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the
addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be
unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy,
print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this
transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender
immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks
e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct
their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions
expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your
co-operation. Humberside Police

Colin Webb left an annotation ()

13th December 2019
 
Case Reference Number FS50896208
 
Dear Sir/Madam

Your reference: F-2019-02292
Complaint from Colin Webb
 
The Information Commissioner has received a complaint from Colin Webb stating that he has not received a decision regarding the internal review he requested on 9 October 2019. See https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...
 
Guidance
 
The Commissioner has issued guidance regarding the time limits on carrying out internal reviews. The Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review, and in no case should the total time taken exceed 40 working days.
 
A full copy of this guidance is available on our website (www.ico.org.uk) under the Freedom of Information guidance section.
 
Enforcement
 
The Commissioner wants to ensure that a complainant has exhausted a public authority’s internal review procedure, but at the same time the complainant should not be unreasonably delayed in having their complaint considered under section 50.
 
Internal reviews are referred to in the section 45 Code of Practice, and significant or repeated unreasonable delays in dealing with internal reviews will be monitored by the Enforcement team. In some instances regulatory action may be necessary.
 
Our Regulatory Action Policy is available on our website here:
 
https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/d...
 
Actions
 
If it is the case that you have not issued an internal review decision to Colin Webb we recommend that you do so within 20 working days from the date of receipt of this letter.
 
If you have, in fact, already responded to Colin Webb, and believe that your response should already have been received we would recommend you contact him to confirm receipt if you have not already done so. 
 
If you need to contact us about this complaint I can be contacted on the number below. Please quote the reference number at the top of this letter.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Michael Lea
Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office
Direct telephone: 0330 313 1641
 
For information about what we do with personal data see our privacy notice