Dear Post Office Limited,

Please provide a copy of the settlement agreement that is referred to in your Press Release dated 11 December 2019 and which appears on your website at

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/post-office...

Please provide this in electronic form.

Yours faithfully,

Peter C. Bell

Dear Post Office Limited,

I submitted this FOI request on 27 April 2020, but have yet to receive an acknowledgement of receipt.

I understand that clause 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides that a response should be made "promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt".

I therefore look forward to receiving your response later today.

Yours faithfully,

Peter C. Bell

Dear Post Office Limited,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Post Office Limited's handling of my FOI request 'Settlement Agreement announced on 11 December 2019'.

My FOI request has been refused on the basis that publication would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of the Post Office.

I note that the headline terms of the settlement agreement have been widely reported in the media, including that there were some 550 claimants and that the total settlement figure was some £57.75 million.

However, very few details of the terms of the settlement and the conditions or restrictions placed on the claimants have been reported.

Section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states:

"(2) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it)."

Could you please explain further your reasoning that publication of the terms of the settlement (given that the financial cost of the settlement has been published) would be likely to deter future claimants in similar actions against the Post Office from consideration of entering in to a settlement agreement?

I would suggest that the the correct approach to assessing the potential prejudicial consequences of disclosure is to only take into account consequences that “can be readily anticipated as realistic possibilities”. If prejudice is considered a realistic possibility, the next step is to assess the likelihood of any such prejudice.

I am unable, from the limited reasoning that you have provided, to assess whether your decision as regards the readily anticipated consequences of disclosure are realistic possibilities and then to assess the likelihood of such potential prejudice.

As regards the application of the Public Interest test, the default position is that the Post Office can only withhold the information if the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest
in disclosure.

The only reason given for maintaining the exemption is that disclosure would be so prejudicial to the Post Office as to impair its ability to enter in to agreements which protect its commercial negotiating position and which maintain the confidence of third parties.

The only consideration in favour of disclosing the information appears to be a consideration of the public interest in transparency and openness. No other consideration appears to have been addressed when performing the balancing exercise required by law.

Can I please ask you to revisit your consideration of the public interest test, particularly in light of my comments above regarding any likely prejudice, and to set out more clearly exactly what considerations, both in favour of and against, the maintenance of the exemption, you took in to account when reaching your decision?

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

Yours faithfully,

Peter C. Bell

Dear Information Rights Team,

Thank you for advising me that you need further time to consider my request for an internal review.
I have made a note in my diary to expect a response from you on (or before) 22 July 2020.

Yours sincerely,

Peter C. Bell

Dear Data Protection,

Thank you for your update advising me of a further delay until 5 August 2020 (from 24 June 2020 (20th working day) to 22 July 2020 (40th working day)).

Hopefully, the 10 weeks (50 working days) since my request for an internal review will prove sufficient for you to be able to reach a decision (having consulted with 3rd parties) and to communicate this decision to me, so that I can consider what further action (if any) might be appropriate.

I note that 5 August 2020 will be the 100th day since I submitted my original request on 27 April 2020.

As before I have made a diary note to check your progress on 5 August 2020. I look forward to hearing from you on that day (even if it is to notify me of a further delay).

Yours sincerely,

Peter C. Bell

Dear Data Protection,

Your promised update by latest 5th August 2020 does not appear to have reached me.
I am therefore proposing to make a formal complaint to the ICO this evening.
Hopefully I will receive an update from you during today so that a complaint to the ICO is not necessary.

Yours sincerely,

Peter C. Bell