Dear Mr Swift

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018060000941

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/06/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

"I ask to be provided

1.        your policy for the action to be taken upon locating and / or
recovering of a vehicle recorded on the police national computer (PNC) as
'lost or stolen' (LoS).  

2.        In particular my interest is with regard to the action taken to
notify interested parties of the whereabouts of the vehicle

a.        who is to be notified; keeper, insurer, other?
b.        how the notification occurs
c.        who undertakes the notification
d.        the action in the event of non-response

with regard to recovery and storage:

3.        the relationship between your constabulary and contractor(s)
a.        their name
b.        when they were appointed
c.        when their contact ends
d.        whether there exists any arrangement that sees your constabulary
receive a payment in respect of recovery and storage from the operator and
if so
e.        how this is calculated,
f.        the sums involved:
i.        for example, amount per vehicle per recovery and or per day of
storage?
ii.        payments received since the process commenced

4.        The service level agreement (SLA)
a.        for responding to a request for recovery
b.        for notifying interested parties and
c.        I ask to be provided the last audit of the operator(s)"

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act.  

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above. Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:

Facebook: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Dear Mr. Swift,  

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018060000941

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/06/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following:

* 1.        Your policy for the action to be taken upon locating and /
or recovering of a vehicle recorded on the police national computer
(PNC) as ‘lost or stolen’ (LoS).  
* 2.        In particular my interest is with regard to the action taken
to notify interested parties of the whereabouts of the vehicle a.    
   who is to be notified; keeper, insurer, other? b.        how the
notification occurs c. who undertakes the notification d. the action
in the event of non-response with regard to recovery and storage:
* 3.        the relationship between your constabulary and contractor(s)
a.        their name b.        when they were appointed c. when their
contact ends d.        whether there exists any arrangement that sees
your constabulary receive a payment in respect of recovery and storage
from the operator and if so e. how this is calculated, f. the sums
involved: i. for example, amount per vehicle per recovery and or per
day of storage? ii. payments received since the process commenced
* 4.        The service level agreement (SLA) a. for responding to a
request for recovery b. for notifying interested parties and c. I ask
to be provided the last audit of the operator(s).

I am sorry to inform you that will not be able to complete our response to
your request by the date originally stated.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering
whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified
exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest
before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application
of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(b) provides that we can
extend the 20 day deadline.  Please see the legal annex for further
information on this section of the Act.

For your information we are considering the following exemptions:

Section 31 - Law Enforcement
Section 43 - Commercial Interests

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 15 August
2018.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Stroud
Information Rights Unit

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(2) provides:

(2) Where-

a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as
respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or
deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a
provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the
applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section
66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as
to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the
application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an
estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision
will have been reached.

 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  0303 123 1113

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:

Facebook: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Dear Mr Swift

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2018070000700

I write in connection with your request for a review of the handling
and/or decision relating to  2018060000941 which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on  18/07/2018.  

A review will now be conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice
issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
 The reviewing officer will reconsider the original request before
responding to you with their findings.

There is no statutory time limit in relation to the completion of an
Internal Review.  However, the MPS aim to complete Internal Reviews within
20 working days or in exceptional cases, within 40 working days.  This is
based upon guidance published by the Information Commissioner.

If it is not possible to complete the Internal Review within this
timescale you will be informed at the earliest opportunity.

If you are unhappy with the outcome of an Internal Review you may wish to
refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

For information on how to make an application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively,
write to or phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  0303 123 1113

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:

Facebook: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Dear Mr Swift

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2018070000700

Further to our earlier correspondence dated 20/07/2018, I am now able to
provide a response to your complaint concerning Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request reference number: 2018060000941.  

You have complained as follows:

It is of concern that you appear to be considering a blanket exemption;
that all of the data will be withheld,  none has been supplied.
Additionally, that you have waited until the 11th hour to respond -
indeed, you appear to be in breach of the Act in that the 20 working days
has passed.

Section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states:

'Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply with
section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth
working day following the date of receipt.'

However, there is provision for an authority to claim a reasonable
extension to this limit, up to an additional 20 working days, where it
needs more time to consider the public interest test.

Section 17(2) of the Act states:

a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as
respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or
deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a
provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the
applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section
66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as
to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the
application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an
estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision
will have been reached.

Your request was dated Sunday, 24/06/2018, therefore the 20th working date
after receipt was 23/07/2018. You were advised that the MPS is considering
the reliance of qualified exemptions on 18/07/2018. Therefore, you were
notified of the extension within time. You have been advised that the time
limit has been extended to 15/8/2018. Therefore, the MPS is not in breach
of Section 10 of the Act.

You have complained that the MPS appears to be considering a blanket
exemption to withhold all data.As detailed in our email dated 18/07/2018,
the MPS is considering the reliance of qualified exemptions. Additionally,
if used, there is not the presumption that any exemptions used will apply
to your request in its entirety.

As a response to your request is currently outstanding, I am unable to
complete a full internal review in relation to your request. However,
should you be dissatisfied with the MPS response to your request, you may
request an internal review in relation to the decision.

I apologise on behalf of the MPS for any inconvenience caused to you by
the delay in providing you with a response to your Freedom of information
Act request.

Yours Sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:

Facebook: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Dear Mr. Swift,  

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018060000941

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/06/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following:

1.        Your policy for the action to be taken upon locating and / or
recovering of a vehicle recorded on the police national computer (PNC) as
‘lost or stolen’ (LoS).  
2.        In particular my interest is with regard to the action taken to
notify interested parties of the whereabouts of the vehicle a. who is to
be notified; keeper, insurer, other? b. how the notification occurs c. who
undertakes the notification d. the action in the event of non-response

* With regard to recovery and storage:

3.        The relationship between your constabulary and contractor(s) a.
their name b. when they were appointed c. when their contact ends d.
whether there exists any arrangement that sees your constabulary receive a
payment in respect of recovery and storage from the operator and if so e.
how this is calculated, f. the sums involved, for example, i. amount per
vehicle per recovery and or per day of storage ii. payments received since
the process commenced
4.        The service level agreement (SLA) a. for responding to a request
for recovery b. for notifying interested parties and c. I ask to be
provided the last audit of the operator(s).

SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
by Fleet Services.  The searches located information relevant to your
request.

DECISION

We have today decided to disclose most of the requested information.
 However, some of the information requested at question 4c has been
withheld as it is exempt from disclosure in accordance with section 43(2)
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and therefore this
response serves as a partial Refusal Notice under Section 17(1).  Please
see the legal annex for further information on the exemption applied in
respect of your request.

DISCLOSURE

Question One - Your policy for the action to be taken upon locating and /
or recovering of a vehicle recorded on the police national computer (PNC)
as ‘lost or stolen’ (LoS).  

Please see the attached and the below, which has been put together to
assist you.

The officer who finds the vehicle is responsible for arranging a FOUND
report on PNC and for notifying the victim of crime, using the contact
details on the crime report.

If the vehicle was reported stolen to another police force, that force
control room is notified and they will inform the victim.

Where practicable the registered keeper is contacted and given the
opportunity to take possession of the vehicle from the place where it is
found. The vehicle cannot be left unattended, so this is dependent upon
the registered keeper living locally and being contactable.

If the registered keeper is unable to reclaim the vehicle from the
roadside, the police officer requests the recovery of the vehicle to a
police pound for safekeeping, at the owner's expense, under Section 99
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

If the vehicle was stolen by means of burglary or was involved in other
serious crime, it will be removed initially under PACE powers for a
forensic examination. Under these circumstances the keeper would not be
permitted to take possession of the vehicle at the scene.

The following link may also be of interest to you:

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-...

For your information, I have redacted names and contact numbers out of the
policy as they are considered not relevant to your request.

Question Two - In particular my interest is with regard to the action
taken to notify interested parties of the whereabouts of the vehicle a.
who is to be notified; keeper, insurer, other? b. how the notification
occurs c. who undertakes the notification d. the action in the event of
non-response

The victim of crime is notified by the officer who finds the vehicle, as
explained above.  Notification is normally by telephone. If the victim
cannot be contacted immediately, a note is placed on the crime report for
the OIC to contact the victim as soon as possible.

Notice letters are sent by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) at the
time of the removal to:

* the registered keeper
* the victim of crime, as recorded on the crime report, if different
from the registered keeper
* any finance company with a recorded interest on the HPI database.

MPS staff will also notify the insurer by email at the time of removal,
using the insurance policy details on PNC. This is not a statutory
requirement. An email is sent regardless of whether an insurance claim has
been recorded on the MIAFTR database.

In accordance with the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles
(England)(Amendment) Regulations 2002, a vehicle can be disposed of after
7 days, if there is no response to the notice letter.

In the MPS we allow 14 days before disposal.

The vehicle will be disposed of automatically after 14 days unless:

* It has finance, in which case the finance company is contacted by
telephone to either remove their interest or arrange collection
* There is a THEFT UNRECOVERED insurance claim, in which case the
insurance company is contacted by telephone to either remove their
interest or arrange collection

If the vehicle was stolen by means of burglary or was involved in other
serious crime, the notification will not be sent until after the vehicle
is no longer required under PACE for evidential reasons.

Question Three - The relationship between your constabulary and
contractor(s) a. their name b. when they were appointed c. when their
contact ends d. whether there exists any arrangement that sees your
constabulary receive a payment in respect of recovery and storage from the
operator and if so e. how this is calculated, f. the sums involved, for
example, i. amount per vehicle per recovery and or per day of storage ii.
payments received since the process commenced

Our vehicle recovery contractor is Mainstream Fleet Ltd T/A C&S motor
group who are supported by a number of vehicle recovery subcontractors.
 They were appointed in March 2013 and after the initial period the
contract has been extended.  The current extension to the contract expires
in March 2019.

The MPS store all vehicles within its own vehicle pounds.  Therefore
payments are only made by the MPS to the contractor in respect of vehicle
recovery charges.  No payments are received from the contractor, other
than service related credits.  This involves a proportion of the recovery
fees being refunded to the MPS, as a result of the contractor's failure to
meet agreed service levels.

Question Four - With regard to recovery and storage, the service level
agreement (SLA) a. for responding to a request for recovery b. for
notifying interested parties and c. I ask to be provided the last audit of
the operator(s).

The terms of the contract state "Response time within the M25 - 100% of
requests met within timescale of 30 minutes …Service credits apply after
50 minutes (5 minutes more than 15 minutes late)." The escalation after 30
minutes states "significant proportions of late recoveries will attract
performance notices. The MPS may suspend services from the contractor."

The MPS notify all interested parties; interested parties will normally be
notified on the day the vehicle is recovered, with the exception of
vehicles involved in crime investigations where the owner will be notified
on completion of Police enquires.

Although no formal audits take place, the MPS hold meetings with the
directors of Mainstream Fleet Ltd on a monthly basis which review all
matters pertaining to the contract.  However, the majority of the
information contained within the last set of minutes from these meetings
is considered to be commercially sensitive and therefore exempt.  Please
see the legal annex for more information.

I can, however, today provide you with the following extract which relates
to performance:

"Steve Floyd (SF) distributed the latest performance figures and stated
that performance for the month of April 2018 had been the second worst
month on record. SF reported that 544 jobs in the month of April were over
60 minutes. Steve Nichol (SN) agreed that the Commonwealth operation had
had an adverse impact.

SF asked for an action plan from SN to show how it was planned to improve
performance. SF continued that what SN had already submitted was a good
start but nowhere near detailed enough."

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Stroud
Information Rights Unit

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:

(1)        A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in
part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request
or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 43(2) of the Act provides:

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).

In order for the exemption provided under Section 43(2) to be engaged in
this case, the MPS must demonstrate that disclosure under the Act would,
or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person.
 In this case, we are relying on the lower threshold of 'would be likely
to'.  This exemption has been applied as disclosure of the minutes
relating to the auditing of our contractor would be likely to have a
prejudicial impact upon the commercial interest of the MPS, with regard to
future tendering processes, but also the commercial interests of
Mainstream Fleet Ltd with regard to the services they can offer and future
service providing to other authorities.    

This exemption is both qualified and prejudice based and we are therefore
required to provide you with both a public interest and harm test.  These
have been reproduced for you below.

Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, we
have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.  We
have also consulted ICO guidance on the use of this exemption, and note
that contractor performance information is covered by section 43 (page 5,
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...).
 Please note, however, some of that has been provided for you today as it
is believed the balance falls in favour of disclosure of that particular
piece of information.

Although the monthly meetings that take place between the MPS and
Mainstream Fleet Ltd are not formal audits, they discuss and review all
areas of importance with regard to the proper undertaking of contractual
duties, from performance, vetting, and training to dealing with any issues
of concern that may arise.  Companies working with the MPS in any such
capacity would not have the expectation that all this information would be
shared with the public or competing companies.  By disclosing this
information under the Act, it becomes public.  This could therefore be
viewed by Mainstream's other potential clients or used by competitors to
inform future business decisions, which could significantly impact the
market position of our contractor.  This is because certain elements
contained within these documents could be of a competitive or strategic
advantage during future tenders.  It is predominantly our contractor who
would be most directly prejudiced by the disclosure of the information
sought in this request.  Ultimately the disclosure of the information
would have the potential to damage business confidence.  

It would be harmful to the commercial interests of the MPS to disclose the
requested information as this would prove detrimental to the relationship
between the MPS and our contractors and suppliers and may, as a result,
damage the bargaining position of the MPS.  This may in turn impact upon
the procurement of similar services in the future, as companies would be
less willing to share details with the MPS through fear of disclosure
under the Act.  This may potentially impact on our ability to run this
aspect of Fleet Services effectively.  

For your information, the MPS have consulted the third party that this
relates to and their views have informed our decision and use of
exemption.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

There is a public interest in transparency relating to all aspects of
procurement when an authority works with external service providers.
 Disclosure of these minutes could provide the public with a deeper
understanding of how public funds are being used and whether those that we
hire for services are appropriate and represent the best value for money
possible.

If people have a better understanding of how public money is spent, this
may give them more confidence in the integrity of the public authority and
in its ability to effectively allocate public funds. Alternatively it may
enable them to make more informed challenges to the spending of public
money by public authorities.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

The ICO guidance itself confirms that there is a public interest in
allowing public authorities to withhold information which if disclosed,
would reduce its ability to negotiate or compete in a commercial
environment.
Furthermore, disclosure of performance related information has the
potential to cause unwarranted reputational damage to those who we employ
to carry out tasks, which may in turn damage their commercial interests
through loss of trade.  This would be grossly unfair, especially
considering the fact there are processes in place should issues arise.
Finally, it is not in the public interest for the relationship between the
MPS and our contractors to be negatively affected.  This is due to the
fact that harm to, or termination of, these relationships may result in
the MPS being unable to procure our preferred choice of contractors; which
we require to facilitate effective policing.  In the event that our
current contractors were to terminate their relationship with the MPS, we
would have to seek out new contractors and renegotiate terms.  By
narrowing the range of those that would work with us, we may be forced us
to use less preferable companies.  This could subsequently lead to us
having to procure less suitable services or utilise public funds in a less
efficient manner.  

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests we have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.
 We consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure.
 The other information that has been disclosed in relation to this company
and this topic demonstrates our commitment to transparency and openness in
the process.   The disclosure of performance and relationship information
during the contract term would be unfair and would potentially have a
negative impact upon our ability to procure services and for Mainstream
Fleet to tender theirs in the future.  The fact that this contract expires
in the near future also factors into this decision.

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law.  Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 10 Lambs Conduit Street, London, WC1N 3NR.
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:

Facebook: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Dear Mr Swift

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018100000908

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 15/10/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

"please can you supply some clarity to the reply provided:

1. what is 'Op Endeavor'
2. what is the 'Commonwealth operation'
3. please provide the action plan from SN to show how it was planned to
improve performance. "

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act.  

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] quoting the reference number above. Should your
enquiry relate to the logging or allocations process we will be able to
assist you directly and where your enquiry relates to other matters (such
as the status of the request) we will be able to pass on a message and/or
advise you of the relevant contact details.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:

Facebook: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Case reference: 2018100000908

Dear Mr Swift,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 2018100000908

Thank you for your request for information received by the Metropolitan
Police Service (MPS) on 19 October 2018, seeking access to the following
information:

Please can you supply some clarity to the reply provided:
1. what is 'Op Endeavor'
2. what is the 'Commonwealth operation'
3. please provide the action plan from SN to show how it was planned to
improve performance.

SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the MPS which located relevant information.

DECISION
We have today decided to disclose most of the requested information.
 However, the information requested at 3, has been withheld as it is
exempt from disclosure in accordance with section 43(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act) and therefore this response serves as a
partial Refusal Notice under Section 17(1).  Please see the legal annex
for further information on the exemption applied in respect of your
request.

1. What is 'Op Endeavor'    
Op Endeavour is the name given to investigations into vehicles that are
stolen where no keys are involved (keyless theft).

2. What is the 'Commonwealth operation'
The Commonwealth Operation was a police operation for the Commonwealth
Heads of Government who held a meeting in London, where repositioning
vehicles were provided by Mainstream Fleet Services (C&S).

3. Please provide the action plan from SN to show how it was planned to
improve performance
Information contained within any action plan in this matter is considered
to be commercially sensitive and therefore exempt.  Please see the Legal
Annex for more information.

I trust that this has satisfied your enquiry and I would like to take this
opportunity to thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me via email at [email address], quoting the reference
number above.

Kind regards,

Suzanne Mason
Information Manager

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:

(1)        A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in
part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request
or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 43(2) of the Act provides:

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).

In order for the exemption provided under Section 43(2) to be engaged in
this case, the MPS must demonstrate that disclosure under the Act would,
or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person.
 In this case, we are relying on the lower threshold of 'would be likely
to'.  This exemption has been applied as disclosure of any action plans
relating to this contractor would be likely to have a prejudicial impact
upon the commercial interest of the MPS, with regard to future tendering
processes, but also the commercial interests of Mainstream Fleet Ltd with
regard to the services they can offer and also providing future service to
other authorities.    

This exemption is both qualified and prejudice based and we are therefore
required to provide you with both a public interest and harm test.  These
have been reproduced for you below.

Evidence of Harm
In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, we
have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.  We
have also consulted ICO guidance on the use of this exemption, and note
that contractor performance information is covered by section 43 (page 5,
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...).
 

Any action plan regarding the Commonwealth operation may review all areas
of importance with regard to the proper undertaking of contractual duties,
from performance and training to dealing with any issues of concern that
may arise.  Companies working with the MPS in any such capacity would not
have the expectation that all of this information would be shared with the
public or competing companies.  By disclosing this information under the
Act, it becomes public.  This could therefore be viewed by Mainstream's
other potential clients or used by competitors to inform future business
decisions, which could significantly impact the market position of our
contractor.  This is because certain elements contained within this
document could be of a competitive or strategic advantage during future
tenders.  It is predominantly our contractor who would be most directly
prejudiced by the disclosure of the information sought in this request.
 Ultimately the disclosure of the information would have the potential to
damage business confidence.  

It would be harmful to the commercial interests of the MPS to disclose the
requested information as this would prove detrimental to the relationship
between the MPS and our contractors and suppliers and may, as a result,
damage the bargaining position of the MPS.  This may in turn impact upon
the procurement of similar services in the future, as companies would be
less willing to share details with the MPS through fear of disclosure
under the Act.  This may potentially impact on our ability to run this
aspect of Fleet Services effectively.  

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure
There is a public interest in transparency relating to all aspects of
procurement when an authority works with external service providers.
 Disclosure of action plans could provide the public with a deeper
understanding of how public funds are being used and whether those that we
hire for services are appropriate and represent the best value for money
possible.

If people have a better understanding of how public money is spent, this
may give them more confidence in the integrity of the public authority and
in its ability to effectively allocate public funds. Alternatively it may
enable them to make more informed challenges to the spending of public
money by public authorities.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure
The ICO guidance itself confirms that there is a public interest in
allowing public authorities to withhold information which if disclosed,
would reduce its ability to negotiate or compete in a commercial
environment.

Furthermore, disclosure of performance related information has the
potential to cause unwarranted reputational damage to those who we employ
to carry out tasks, which may in turn damage their commercial interests
through loss of trade.  This would be grossly unfair, especially
considering the fact there are processes in place should issues arise.

Finally, it is not in the public interest for the relationship between the
MPS and our contractors to be negatively affected.  This is due to the
fact that harm to, or termination of, these relationships may result in
the MPS being unable to procure our preferred choice of contractors; which
we require to facilitate effective policing.  In the event that our
current contractors were to terminate their relationship with the MPS, we
would have to seek out new contractors and renegotiate terms.  By
narrowing the range of those that would work with us, we may be forced us
to use less preferable companies.  This could subsequently lead to us
having to procure less suitable services or utilise public funds in a less
efficient manner.  

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests we have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.
 We consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure.
 The other information that has been disclosed demonstrates our commitment
to transparency and openness in the process.   The disclosure of
performance and relationship information during the contract term would be
unfair and would potentially have a negative impact upon our ability to
procure services and for Mainstream Fleet to tender theirs in the future.
 The fact that this contract has an expiration date also factors into this
decision.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint
If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner
After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:

Facebook: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Dear Mr Swift

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2018110000008

I write in connection with your request for a review of the handling
and/or decision relating to  2018100000908 which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on  24/10/2018.  

A review will now be conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice
issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
 The reviewing officer will reconsider the original request before
responding to you with their findings.

There is no statutory time limit in relation to the completion of an
Internal Review.  However, the MPS aim to complete Internal Reviews within
20 working days or in exceptional cases, within 40 working days.  This is
based upon guidance published by the Information Commissioner.

If it is not possible to complete the Internal Review within this
timescale you will be informed at the earliest opportunity.

If you are unhappy with the outcome of an Internal Review you may wish to
refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

For information on how to make an application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively,
write to or phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  0303 123 1113

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:

Facebook: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Dear Mr Swift

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2018110000008

Further to our earlier correspondence dated 01/11/2018, I am now able to
provide a response to your complaint concerning Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA / the Act) request reference number: 2018100000908.  

Background to your complaint:

This review concentrates on the following request that you submitted to
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/10/2018:
Please can you supply some clarity to the reply provided:
1. what is 'Op Endeavor'
2. what is the 'Commonwealth operation'
3. please provide the action plan from SN to show how it was planned to
improve performance.
On 24/10/2018, we provided you with a partial disclosure. We refused the
information requested in question 3 by virtue of Section 43(2) of the act
- Commercial Interests.

On the same day, you wrote:

1. What is 'Op Endeavor'    
thank you

2. What is the 'Commonwealth operation'
please supply greater clarification.  When was this, what is meant by '
repositioning vehicles were provided by Mainstream Fleet Services (C&S)',
who are mainstream Fleet Service and C&S (they do not appear synonymous).

3. Please provide the action plan from SN to show how it was planned to
improve performance whilst I am not challenging this, I am surprised no
part of the plan can be disclosed i.e redaction would nto satisfy the
request.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to provide you with further information for question 2 and vary
our response for question 3 to no recorded information held by the MPS.

REASON FOR DECISION

In respect of question 2 you have said:

please supply greater clarification.  When was this, what is meant by '
repositioning vehicles were provided by Mainstream Fleet Services (C&S)',
who are mainstream Fleet Service and C&S (they do not appear synonymous).

The Commonwealth Operation relates to the Commonwealth Heads of Government
Meeting which was held on Monday 16th to Saturday 21st April 2018.  The UK
Government hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London
and Windsor.  

It was expected that 52 Heads of State and Foreign Ministers would attend.
The MPS supplied recovery vehicles to reposition any vehicle which was
parked within the security zone to another area outside of the zone (no
charge was made to the owner of any vehicle relocated).

Mainstream Fleet Ltd, trading as C&S Motor Group, were the MPS vehicle
recovery contractor assigned to perform these repositions. Each vehicle
had a MPS police officer or PCSO who directed the  C & S driver at the
time of repositioning the vehicle.

In respect of question 3 you have said:

Please provide the action plan from SN to show how it was planned to
improve performance whilst I am not challenging this, I am surprised no
part of the plan can be disclosed i.e redaction would nto satisfy the
request.

For my review of the response provided to you, I have assessed whether the
MPS' reliance of Section 43(2) - Commercial Interests is valid in this
case.

Section 1 of the FOIA states that any person making a request for
information to a public authority is entitled to be informed in writing by
the public authority whether it holds information of the description
specified in the request and, if that is the case, to have that
information communicated to him.

Information is defined in Section 84 of the Act as information recorded in
any form. The Act therefore only extends to requests for recorded
information. It does not require public authorities to answer questions
generally; only if they already hold the answers in recorded form. The Act
does not extend to requests for information about policies or their
implementation, or the merits or demerits of any proposal or action
unless, the answer to any such request is already held in recorded form.

As part of my investigation of your request for an internal review, I have
made enquiries with Met Operations Chief Officer Team.  Contact has also
been made with the Director of Mainstream Fleet Limited. I have been
advised that the action plan referred to in your request is not a physical
document, but was a verbally discussed agreement. Therefore the
application of a Section 43(2) exemption is not valid as the MPS does not
hold recorded information relevant to your request.

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this Internal Review you have
the right to appeal the decision by contacting the Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO) for a decision on whether the request for
information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the
FOIA.

For information on how to make an application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively,
write to or phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  0303 123 1113

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:

Facebook: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk