Vehicle Theft - Security Compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr Swift

FOI Request Reference: 1480A/23

Thank you for your request for information, received 14/09/23 and
clarified on 29/09/23

REQUEST

In relation to your PCC taking the lead on vehicle crime in 2019. WMP and
Crime Commissioner agreed to help the government tackle car crime by
making contributions to its new Vehicle Crime Taskforce. The information
will run from 01/2018.

The subject matter relates to vehicle theft, vehicle security (as fitted
by manufacturers), theft methodology (security compromise).

The information is exchanges between WMP with your PCC, the Home Office
(Vehicle Crime Taskforce), manufacturers and the Society of Motor
Manufacturers, about vehicle security/theft . This will include notes of
meetings attended and action to be taken, the dates and notes of briefings
between WMP and PCC relating to vehicle security compromise’; opinions and
evidence.

The PCC appears to have written to ‘Mike’ in 2019, it is possible WMP's
exchanges will extend to Kit Malthouse, then Minister of State for Crime
and Policing.  WMP’s officer associated is believed to be Jim Munro.

RESPONSE

Please be advised that the information that you have requested is not held
in a readily retrievable format. Information relating to `Exchanges`
between WMP and the PCC, the Home Office (Vehicle Crime Taskforce),
manufacturers and the Society of Motor Manufacturers, about vehicle
security/theft is not held centrally or in an electronically, or any other
searchable format. It would require the FOI unit to contact every employee
that was in service from January 2018 and ask them to search all records
held by them in order to establish if any relevant information was held.

Please be advised that `exchanges` would include all written and
electronic correspondence, including emails, letters, text messages,
WhatsApp messages, minutes from meetings etc. However, correspondence may
also be saved onto other force systems, dependent on its usage, or printed
and saved into a paper format or scanned and saved in an electronic
format. The scope of this request is so broad that in order to determine
any and all `exchanges` and communication on this subject matter, we would
need to conduct multiple manual searches of force systems and physical
locations used by West Midlands Police. Additionally, as you have asked
for correspondence between West Midlands Police and the Office of the
Police and Crime Commissioner, this would encompass any/all employees of
the force as a whole, and any/all employees of the OPCC, however, to
approach all employees in relation to this request would be a massive
undertaking. Similarly, a force-wide search of all email correspondence
would need to be conducted, however, emails pertaining to the requested
subject matter may not be easily or immediately identifiable, therefore,
an additional manual review of emails would need to be conducted in order
to determine which emails fell within the scope of this request.
Conducting these searches however, would exceed the appropriate limit
(FOIA, s.12). In addition, you have not provided the names or contact
details for any of the other organisations that fall within the scope of
the request - the Home Office (Vehicle Crime Taskforce), manufacturers and
the Society of Motor Manufacturers and so we could not even start to
conduct searches in relation to these organisations.

Therefore, The cost of trying to identify and retrieve relevant
information, if any is held, is above the amount to which we are legally
required to respond. The cost of confirming or denying that the
information is held would exceed the appropriate costs limit under section
12(2) of the FOI Act 2000. It exceeds the ‘appropriate level’ as stated in
the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts
as a Refusal Notice for this request

Unfortunately, due to the reasons outlined above, I am unable to suggest
any practical way in which your request may be modified in order to
satisfy your query or bring it within the 18 hours stipulated by the
Regulations.

Further information on section 12 of FOI is available here:

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

RIGHT OF APPEAL

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Mrs R Williams l FOI Manager

Lloyd House l West Midlands Police

Working in partnership, making communities safer

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

References

Visible links
1. https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...
2. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...

Dear Mr Swift

FOI Internal Review Reference: 1503A/23

Thank you for your correspondence received 02/10/2023 where you requested
West Midlands Police to review its response to your request for
information under reference number 1408A/23.

I believe that you contacted PSD on 04/09/23 and the following request for
information was passed to the Civil Disclosure Unit:

Please advise what became of my 03/2019 submission to yourselves ‘U.K.
Vehicle Theft’ and provide this and all associated information, to include
subsequent approaches about your ‘lead’ on vehicle crime with
manufacturers and the Home Office with any more recent updates.

On 14/09/23 the Civil Disclosure Unit advised that A SAR is for personal
data, and the part of the request that they could can accept is `Please
advise what became of my 03/2019 submission to yourselves ‘U.K. Vehicle
Theft’ and provide this and all associated information`,

They advised that the next part of the sentence “to include subsequent
approaches about your ‘lead’ on vehicle crime with manufacturers and the
Home Office with any more recent updates.” is not your personal data, and
therefore not within the scope of a subject access request. They noted
your reference to FOI and advised that they would pass part of your
request onto the FOI team.

On the 28/09/23 I asked that you clarify what specific recorded
information it is that you require.

On the 29/09/23 you responded:

With regard to the FOIA aspect, you will likely be aware that I have
previously sought exchanges on the subject, those that relate to WMP
seemingly wishing to take a lead on vehicle crime, involving the Home
Office and manufacturers.

understandably, there will be exchanges between the PCC and WMP on the
subject / actions.

I am seeking the more recent information

On 29/09/23 I advised that, Unfortunately it does not appear that you have
outlined what specific recorded information it is that you require, and
should you wish to proceed we will need this please.

The FOI Act covers requests for recorded information held by the force,
and we require specific search parameters in order that we can allocate
the request to the most appropriate department/s to research and retrieve
information requested. The authority is not obliged to cross-reference
other information, documents, and links etc in order to try and establish
the specific information that an applicant requires. In this instance you
have referenced `previously sought exchanges` and a link on the OPCC`s
website. This does not constitute a request for specific recorded
information under the Act, and in its current format we are unable to
assist with your request.

Please also note that personal information is not available under FOI,
therefore we would not be able to assist in the provision of
correspondence submitted by you, or `exchanges` about you. We asked that,
should you wish to proceed with a request, please could you clarify what
specific recorded information it is that you require.

On 29/09/23 you responded:

I understand that the PCC obtained information from WMP with regard to
theft methodology and figures. It is this exchange / information I am
seeking from WMP. Whether you had any direct involvement with the Home
Office I do not know. I understand there were meetings between the PCC,
manufacturers and Home Office, if WMP attended, the request will include
this.

On 29/09/23 I advised that your e-mail correspondence does not provide a
specific request for information. It does not detail a time period. It
does not identify a specific subject matter. It does not identify who
within WMP you believe that the PCC obtained information from. It does not
identify what you mean by `exchange`. You have not identified what
meetings may be included in the scope of the request. You have not
identified what manufacturers you refer to. You have not given any
indication as to what role the Home Office or WMP would be undertaking in
such meetings, where they were, or when they were.   

We advised that it was very unlikely that we will be able to assist with
your enquiry in its current format, and asked that you please confirm if
this is the request that you are submitting.

On 29/09/23 you responded:

The time period will be from the date your PCC elected to be the lead,
01/2019 appears an appropriate start date. I cannot determine when he
elected to embark upon his meetings with manufacturers .

The subject matter is vehicle crime; the concerns about vehicle security
and the vehicle manufacturers association with this.

I cannot know who the PCC acquired information save for Jim Munro who I
understand specifically provided data / information to the PCC.

The role WMP played in the meetings cannot be ascertained by me and will
have no bearing upon the information required – if you attended meetings,
there will be a record of these and I would suggest Mr Munro would be the
first point of contact.

And

I am seeking the information your constabulary possesses in relation to
your PCC taking the lead on vehicle crime in 2019 [1].  WMP and Crime
Commissioner agreed to help the government tackle car crime by making
contributions to its new  Vehicle Crime Taskforce [2]. The information
will run from the date of the agreement.  It appears the information will
run from 01/2018 [3].

The subject matter is addressed, in detail, in the links below but relates
to vehicle theft, vehicle security (as fitted by manufacturers), theft
methodology (security compromise).

The information is exchanges between WMP with your PCC, the Home Office
(Vehicle Crime Taskforce) [4], manufacturers and the Society of Motor
Manufacturers, about vehicle security/theft [4]. This will include notes
of meetings attended and action to be taken, the dates and notes of
briefings between WMP and PCC relating to vehicle security compromise’ ;
opinions and evidence.

The PCC appears to have written to ‘Mike’ [4] in 2019, it is possible
WMP's exchanges will extend to Kit Malthouse, then Minister of State for
Crime and Policing.  WMP’s officer associated is believed to be Jim Munro.

And

I have placed to WDTK -
[1]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/v...

From this we determined the request to read as follows:

In relation to your PCC taking the lead on vehicle crime in 2019. WMP and
Crime Commissioner agreed to help the government tackle car crime by
making contributions to its new Vehicle Crime Taskforce. The information
will run from 01/2018.

The subject matter relates to vehicle theft, vehicle security (as fitted
by manufacturers), theft methodology (security compromise).

The information is exchanges between WMP with your PCC, the Home Office
(Vehicle Crime Taskforce), manufacturers and the Society of Motor
Manufacturers, about vehicle security/theft . This will include notes of
meetings attended and action to be taken, the dates and notes of briefings
between WMP and PCC relating to vehicle security compromise’; opinions and
evidence.

The PCC appears to have written to ‘Mike’ in 2019, it is possible WMP's
exchanges will extend to Kit Malthouse, then Minister of State for Crime
and Policing.  WMP’s officer associated is believed to be Jim Munro.

The force responded on 2^nd October 2023 and advised that the information
that you have requested is not held in a readily retrievable format.
Information relating to `Exchanges` between WMP and the PCC, the Home
Office (Vehicle Crime Taskforce), manufacturers and the Society of Motor
Manufacturers, about vehicle security/theft is not held centrally or in an
electronically, or any other searchable format. It would require the FOI
unit to contact every employee that was in service from January 2018 and
ask them to search all records held by them in order to establish if any
relevant information was held.

Please be advised that `exchanges` would include all written and
electronic correspondence, including emails, letters, text messages,
WhatsApp messages, minutes from meetings etc. However, correspondence may
also be saved onto other force systems, dependent on its usage, or printed
and saved into a paper format or scanned and saved in an electronic
format. The scope of this request is so broad that in order to determine
any and all `exchanges` and communication on this subject matter, we would
need to conduct multiple manual searches of force systems and physical
locations used by West Midlands Police. Additionally, as you have asked
for correspondence between West Midlands Police and the Office of the
Police and Crime Commissioner, this would encompass any/all employees of
the force as a whole, and any/all employees of the OPCC, however, to
approach all employees in relation to this request would be a massive
undertaking. Similarly, a force-wide search of all email correspondence
would need to be conducted, however, emails pertaining to the requested
subject matter may not be easily or immediately identifiable, therefore,
an additional manual review of emails would need to be conducted in order
to determine which emails fell within the scope of this request.
Conducting these searches however, would exceed the appropriate limit
(FOIA, s.12). In addition, you have not provided the names or contact
details for any of the other organisations that fall within the scope of
the request - the Home Office (Vehicle Crime Taskforce), manufacturers and
the Society of Motor Manufacturers and so we could not even start to
conduct searches in relation to these organisations.

Therefore, The cost of trying to identify and retrieve relevant
information, if any is held, is above the amount to which we are legally
required to respond. The cost of confirming or denying that the
information is held would exceed the appropriate costs limit under section
12(2) of the FOI Act 2000. It exceeds the ‘appropriate level’ as stated in
the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts
as a Refusal Notice for this request

Unfortunately, due to the reasons outlined above, I am unable to suggest
any practical way in which your request may be modified in order to
satisfy your query or bring it within the 18 hours stipulated by the
Regulations.

Further information on section 12 of FOI is available here: 

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

REQUEST

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

You understand there have been exchanges relating to this very specific
topic instigated by the PCC and involving Mr Munro.

You believe that the request does not require the FOI unit to contact
every employee that was in service from January 2018 and ask them to
search all records held by them in order to establish if any relevant
information is held.

And you believe that the manner in which the request has been handled
appears intended to prevent disclosure.

RESPONSE

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

In order to assist and to try and progress the request, I have contacted
you 3 times in order to get clarification of the specific information that
you were requesting. You had these opportunities to refine your request to
a manageable level. For your final submission, you advised that you
required exchanges between WMP with the PCC, the Home Office (Vehicle
Crime Taskforce), manufacturers and the Society of Motor Manufacturers,
about vehicle security/theft. To include notes of meetings attended and
action to be taken, the dates and notes of briefings between WMP and PCC
relating to vehicle security compromise’ opinions and evidence. Including
the PCC appears to have written to ‘Mike’ in 2019,  WMP's exchanges with
Kit Malthouse, then Minister of State for Crime and Policing, and that
WMP’s officer associated is believed to be Jim Munro.

Due to the generic nature of the request and the number of correspondents
listed, in addition to the lack of specific named individuals, and the
nearly 6 year time-frame that the request covers means that to try and
identify relevant information that may be held for all aspects of the
request would require the searches outlined in our response to you, and
this is why Section 12(2) is engaged.

I hope that this is of assistance.

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

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

[4]Contact us | ICO

Yours sincerely,

Mrs R Williams

FOI Manager

Lloyd House l West Midlands Police

Working in partnership, making communities safer

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

References

Visible links
1. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/v...
2. https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...
3. https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/foi-...
4. https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

Dear Mr Swift,

Our ref: 1480A/23 and 1503A/23

ICO ref: IC-263061-P8L4

Thank you for your request for information which was originally received
by this office on 29^th September 2023. Please find our reply as follows.

Request

I am seeking the information your constabulary possesses in relation to
your PCC taking the lead on vehicle crime in 2019. WMP and Crime
Commissioner agreed to help the government tackle car crime by making
contributions to its new Vehicle Crime Taskforce. The information will run
from the date of the agreement. It appears the information will run from
01/2018.

The subject matter relates to vehicle theft, vehicle security (as fitted
by manufacturers), theft methodology (security compromise).

The information is exchanges between WMP with your PCC, the Home Office
(Vehicle Crime Taskforce), manufacturers and the Society of Motor
Manufacturers, about vehicle security/theft. This will include notes of
meetings attended and action to be taken, the dates and notes of briefings
between WMP and PCC relating to vehicle security compromise’; opinions and
evidence.

The PCC appears to have written to ‘Mike’ in 2019, it is possible WMP's
exchanges will extend to Kit Malthouse, then Minister of State for Crime
and Policing. WMP’s officer associated is believed to be Jim Munro.

Response

We can confirm that we hold some information in the scope of this request.
However, our data are not organised in such a way as to allow us to
provide this information within the appropriate (cost) limit of the
Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, i.e., the cost of locating and
retrieving the information would exceed the appropriate costs limit under
section 12(1) of the FOI Act 2000. For West Midlands Police, the
appropriate limit is set at £450, as prescribed by the Freedom of
Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations
2004, S.I. 3244.

Further information on section 12 of FOI is available here:

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

Reason for decision

If any relevant exchanges between West Midlands Police and the bodies
specified in this request had taken place, this would not have been
through a single person or department. Instead, communication could have
taken place at multiple levels across the force and as a result,
information that might fall within the scope of this request could be held
in multiple locations.

Due to the broad nature of this request and the time period involved, it
is possible that this could require us to search within every department
across the force to be assured of identifying all relevant information.
However, it’s reasonable for us to assume that exchanges of this kind
would be very unlikely to have taken place between those bodies specified
and areas of the force such as local neighbourhood policing teams,
Professional Standards Department, Public Protection Unit etc. Therefore,
we limited our searches to only include the departments and key
individuals we deemed would be most likely to hold information of the type
requested. This included: The Force Executive Team, The Vehicle Crime
Team, Intelligence Department and Partnerships Crime Reduction Team.

From searches within these areas of the force, it was only possible to
locate and retrieve the following four pieces of information that relate
to this request*:

·      Two short email exchanges between Intel and the OPCC, each with an
intelligence summary attached concerning vehicle thefts.

·      Two documents outlining a proposed working agreement between West
Midlands Police and a motor vehicle manufacturer.

*It should be noted that due to the sensitive nature of the content
contained within the intelligence summaries, Section 31 (Law enforcement)
would likely apply to their release, and with regard to the proposed
working agreement, because it has not yet been approved and signed off,
Section 43 (Commercial interests) would likely apply.

Attempting to locate this information involved multiple enquiries,
conversations, phone calls and system searches which have been extensive.

It is clear from our enquiries though that more information is likely to
be held. However, there is no way for us to determine what and how much
information that might be without undertaking a manual review of
mailboxes. This would be all emails between key individuals and
departments identified from our enquiries above, with the individuals and
departments specified in this request.

It is not possible to give a precise calculation as to the time it would
take to review each single email for relevancy to this request, but it
would seem reasonable to suggest one minute per email.

With that in mind, we asked our IT Department (IT&D) to run two sample
searches in order to give us an idea of the scale of the task.

A search of email exchanges between five key WMP individuals identified in
our searches above, and the current and former West Midlands Police and
Crime Commissioners, produced the following results:

Search 1 - Number of emails between David Jamieson (PCC 2014-2021) and
specified WMP employees – 1,653 emails across the total period.

Search 2 - Number of emails between Simon Foster (Current PCC) and
specified WMP employees – 7,020 emails across the total period.

As you can see from the search above, exchanges between the PCCs and just
a small number of our employees we would need to search against would
require a search in excess of 140 hours. This alone would therefore far
exceed the appropriate limit under the FOI Act.

Keyword searches were considered to reduce the number of emails for manual
checks. However, given the scope of the information requested no word or
combination of words could be reasonably applied to sufficiently reduce
the number, whilst maintaining confidence that no relevant material had
been excluded.

In addition to this, email searches would also need to be conducted
against four former members of the Executive Team, as well as at least two
other senior members of staff. We would anticipate that these searches
would similarly produce thousands of results that would need individually
reviewing.

Furthermore, searches would need to be carried out on at least seven
officers in the current vehicle crime team which has been set up for
approximately 15 months. Prior to this, officers from the vehicle
taskforce (set up 2022) would need to be searched against. This taskforce
was force wide and therefore to accurately identify all officers that
might have been involved would be difficult. As would identifying all
officers that might have been involved in this business area prior to the
setting up of the taskforce.

It should also be noted that the sample searches carried out by IT&D above
relied on inputting the specific individuals email addresses. With regard
to searching against emails to/from external individuals and organisations
however, then without knowing the specific email addresses, it is not
possible for IT&D to carry out specific searches. This would mean
reviewing ALL emails to and from WMP employees that might have been
involved in this area.

All of these factors together go to demonstrate the huge scale of work
that would be required to meet the requirements of this request, and how
it would far and beyond exceed the appropriate limit (FOIA, s.12).

This means that the cost of compliance with the whole of your request is
above the amount to which we are legally required to respond, i.e. the
cost of locating and retrieving the information would exceed the
appropriate costs limit under section 12(1) of the FOI Act 2000. For West
Midlands Police, the appropriate limit is set at £450, as prescribed by
the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and
Fees) Regulations 2004, S.I. 3244.

Further information on section 12 of FOI is available here:

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

Unfortunately, due to the reasons outlined above, I am unable to suggest
any practical way in which your request may be modified in order to
satisfy your query or bring it within the 18 hours stipulated by the
Regulations. I am however willing to consider any refinements that you are
able to make to your request, in accordance with Section 16 of the Freedom
of Information Act.  If you would like to look into refining your request
please contact us.

Right of appeal

If you are dissatisfied with our decision, you may make application to the
[3]Information Commissioner’s Office for a decision on whether the request
for information has been dealt with in

accordance with the requirements of the Act. You should make application
to the ICO within six weeks of this response. The easiest way to do this
is through their website: [4]www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints. Alternatively,
the ICO’s postal address is Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF.

If you require any further information, then please do not hesitate to
contact me.

Yours sincerely,

┌─────────────┬─┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│[5]A blue and│ │David Notley │
│white logo │ │ │
│with a black │ │Disclosure Officer │
│background │ │ │
│Description │ │Freedom of Information Unit │
│automatically│ │ │
│generated │ │Corporate Communications │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │West Midlands Police │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │  │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │Tel: 101 │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │Web: [6]westmidlands.police.uk │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │Working in partnership, making communities safer │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │[7][IMG][8][IMG][9][IMG][10][IMG][11][IMG][12][IMG][13][IMG]│
└─────────────┴─┴────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

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

References

Visible links
1. https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...
2. https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...
3. https://ico.org.uk/
4. http://www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints
6. https://www.westmidlands.police.uk/
7. https://www.facebook.com/westmidlandspol...
8. https://twitter.com/wmpolice
9. https://www.instagram.com/westmidlandspo...
10. https://www.linkedin.com/company/west-mi...
11. https://www.youtube.com/westmidlandspolice
12. https://tiktok.com/@officialwmp
13. https://wmnow.co.uk/

Thank you for your e-mail, you have contacted the Freedom of Information
(FOI) Unit.

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

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

  *   about yourself. This is a Subject Access
Request<[1]https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...>
(SAR)
  *   about third parties
  *   about your police record
  *   to access legal aid
  *   for employment purposes
  *   for civil proceedings
  *   for insurance requests
  *   in relation to police certificates for the purpose of emigration,
visas and residency
If you want to make a request on any of the above, visit our website to
find out how: [2]Request | West Midlands Police

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

Working in partnership, making communities safer
If it’s not 999, search WMP
Online<[4]https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/>

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

References

Visible links
1. https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...
2. https://beta.westmidlands.police.uk/rqo/...
3. https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/cont...
4. https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/

Dear Mr Swift,

On 8th July 2024, in reply to my response to you of 8th July 2024 (WMP
refs: 1480A/23 & 1503A/23, ICO ref: IC-263061-P8L4), you wrote “You have
identified some information pertinent to my request, which I now formally
request as follows: A. Please provide the identified information. If
necessary, consider this a new request.”

Please find my response to this new request under the Freedom of
Information Act (our ref: 1091A/24) as follows:

Request

Identified information:

a) Two short email exchanges between West Midlands Police Intelligence
Department and the Office of the West Midlands Police and Crime
Commissioner, each with an intelligence summary attached concerning
vehicle thefts.

b) Two documents outlining a proposed working agreement between West
Midlands Police and a motor vehicle manufacturer.

Response

Question a) I can confirm that this information is held by West Midlands
Police. However, we are not required to release all of the information
requested since it is exempt by virtue of Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law
enforcement and Section 40(2) - Personal information. Please find redacted
copies of the emails and documents attached.

Section 40(2) allows for personal data to be withheld where release would
breach the third party’s data protection rights and relates to the
redacted names, email addresses, and contact details on the attached
emails. It would be unfair to release this information where any person
could be identified from the data and in this case the right to privacy
outweighs any public interest in release. 

Section 31(1)(a)(b) relates to all other redactions on the emails and
documents and is a prejudice-based qualified exemption. This means that I
must carry out a prejudice (harm) test, and a public interest test. Please
find this as follows:

Section 31(1)(a)(b)(Law enforcement) - Prejudice/Public interest test

S31 Harm

The requested emails and documents contain intelligence regarding vehicle
crime. Disclosure of the redacted parts would undermine law enforcement by
weakening the ability of West Midlands Police to effectively tackle
vehicle crime. Criminals would gain insight into the
intelligence-gathering methods and the focus of law enforcement efforts,
allowing them to refine their tactics to evade capture or detection. This
would lead to an increase in vehicle crime, making it harder for the force
to protect the public and property.

S31 Factors favouring disclosure:

Disclosure of the information would enhance public awareness of the
nature, scale, and trends of vehicle theft. This may empower individuals
to take preventive measures, thereby potentially reducing the risk of
their vehicles being stolen. It would contribute to the transparency of
our law enforcement activities, ensuring that the public can hold us
accountable for our actions and strategies for dealing with vehicle crime.
It would also demonstrate our commitment to tackling this type of crime,
increasing public confidence in West Midlands Police by showing that we
are actively monitoring and addressing vehicle crime. This could enhance
trust between the community and the force.

S31 Factors favouring non-disclosure:

Disclosure of the information would reveal law enforcement methods,
techniques, specific areas of focus and operational tactics. This could
hinder the effectiveness of ongoing and future investigations into vehicle
crime. Criminals could adapt their strategies in response to disclosed
intelligence to evade detection. This could make it more difficult for
West Midlands Police to prevent and detect vehicle theft, ultimately
leading to an increase in this type of crime.

Additionally, if criminals have access to the full content of intelligence
summaries, they could exploit any identified gaps or weaknesses in current
law enforcement strategies, leading to an increase in vehicle thefts or
other related crimes.

S31 Balance of the public interest

A public interest test requires a public authority to weigh the public
interest in maintaining the exemption(s) against the public interest in
disclosure of the information. The public interest though is not what
interests the public or a particular individual, but what would be the
greater good to the community. 

Whilst there are significant arguments for the release of information to
promote transparency, accountability, public awareness and confidence, the
potential harm that could arise from disclosing the redacted information
relating to vehicle crime is considerable. The release of this information
could compromise ongoing investigations, hinder law enforcement tactics,
and ultimately lead to an increase in vehicle theft, thereby endangering
public safety and property.

On balance, the public interest in protecting the effectiveness of law
enforcement activities and the safety of the community outweighs the
public interest in disclosure. The potential risks and harms associated
with releasing this information are substantial and would likely have a
more significant negative impact on the public than the benefits of
increased transparency, awareness, and confidence.

It is therefore my opinion that the public interest is best served by
withholding the redacted information and maintaining the exemption.
Disclosing this information would likely prejudice law enforcement efforts
and could result in an increased risk to public safety and the integrity
of criminal investigations.

Question b) I can confirm that this information is held by West Midlands
Police. However, we are withholding that information since it is exempt by
virtue of Section 43(2) - Commercial interests.

Section 43(2) is a prejudice-based qualified exemption. This means that I
must carry out a prejudice (harm) test, and a public interest test. Please
find this as follows:

Section 43(2)(Commercial interests) - Prejudice/Public interest test

S43 Harm

The proposed working agreement between West Midlands Police and the
vehicle manufacturer has not yet been fully agreed and approved.
Uncoordinated release of draft details into the public domain could set a
precedent that deters other private companies from entering into
partnerships with West Midlands Police. Companies may fear that their
commercially sensitive information could be exposed prematurely, leading
to reluctance to collaborate on future initiatives.

S43 Factors favouring disclosure:

Disclosing details of the draft proposal would enhance transparency in the
relationship between the force and the vehicle manufacturer. Release of
the information would allow for public scrutiny of the agreement to ensure
that it is in the public interest and not unduly favouring the private
company. It would help to ensure that the agreement does not compromise
public safety or ethical standards.

Making the draft proposal public could increase public trust in the force,
demonstrating our proactive efforts to combat vehicle crime in partnership
with industry experts. An informed public is better able to understand the
challenges and strategies involved in tackling vehicle crime, stimulating
public debate on the appropriateness of the commercial terms and the
potential benefits or drawbacks of such partnerships, and potentially
leading to greater public cooperation and support for such initiatives.

S43 Factors favouring non-disclosure:

Public disclosure of the information before it is fully agreed could lead
to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the project’s goals or
methods. This could harm the reputations of both the manufacturer and the
force, especially if the public or media react negatively to the
proposal's preliminary details.

Releasing details of the agreement before it is finalised could negatively
affect ongoing negotiations. Both parties may be compelled to alter or
abandon aspects of the agreement, which could lead to a less effective
partnership or even a breakdown in negotiations. This could ultimately
hinder the force’s efforts to reduce vehicle crime.

If companies perceive that their commercial interests are not protected in
such collaborations, they may be less willing to engage in future
partnerships with public bodies, fearing that their commercially sensitive
information could be prematurely disclosed. This could reduce
opportunities for beneficial public-private partnerships.

Revealing details of the proposal at this stage would alert criminals to
the strategies being considered to combat vehicle crime. This could lead
to offenders adapting their methods to counteract the planned initiatives
before they are even implemented, potentially reducing the effectiveness
of the project, and thereby indirectly harming commercial interests.

S43 Balance of the public interest

In weighing the public interest arguments above, it is necessary to
consider the degree of commercial prejudice that could result from
disclosure of the information, against the potential benefits of
transparency and informed public awareness.

Transparency and public accountability are strong arguments for
disclosure, particularly when the use of public resources is involved.
However, these interests can often be served by releasing details of
proposals after they have been finalised, rather than while negotiations
are ongoing.

It is my opinion that the harm that could arise from releasing the
information outweighs the public interest benefits. The potential for
commercial damage to the vehicle manufacturer, the risk of undermining
ongoing negotiations, and the possible deterrent effect on future
public-private partnerships present significant risks. Additionally, the
disclosure could compromise the operational effectiveness of the force’s
strategy against vehicle crime, potentially putting the public at greater
risk.

Once the agreement is finalised, more detailed information will be
disclosed to satisfy the public interest in transparency and
accountability without causing undue harm to commercial interests or the
initiative’s success. At this moment in time though, I consider that the
public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding release
of the two working agreement documents.

Right of appeal

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

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

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

If you require any further information, then please do not hesitate to
contact me.

Kind regards,

┌─────────────┬─┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│[2]A blue and│ │David Notley │
│white logo │ │ │
│with a black │ │Disclosure Officer │
│background │ │ │
│Description │ │Freedom of Information Unit │
│automatically│ │ │
│generated │ │Corporate Communications │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │West Midlands Police │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │  │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │Tel: 101 │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │Web: [3]westmidlands.police.uk │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │Working in partnership, making communities safer │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │[4][IMG][5][IMG][6][IMG][7][IMG][8][IMG][9][IMG][10][IMG]│
└─────────────┴─┴─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

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

References

Visible links
1. https://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revi...
3. https://www.westmidlands.police.uk/
4. https://www.facebook.com/westmidlandspol...
5. https://twitter.com/wmpolice
6. https://www.instagram.com/westmidlandspo...
7. https://www.linkedin.com/company/west-mi...
8. https://www.youtube.com/westmidlandspolice
9. https://tiktok.com/@officialwmp
10. https://wmnow.co.uk/

Dear Mr Swift

You requested an internal review of our handling of your information
request, which we received on 8^th July 2024. WMP reference 1259A/24

This internal review is specific to your information request. West
Midlands Police have reviewed the response to see if we have met the
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Your concerns

You believe that the response you have received does not meet the ICO's
direction. You have requested that our approach is reconsidered.

My decision

Having considered our handling of your request, I find that I agree with
the revised response you received on 8^th July (Titled 1259A/24 WMP refs:
1480A/23 & 1503A/23, ICO ref: IC-263061-P8L4). You have received a new
response under reference number 1091A/24 regarding the documentation you
have requested.

I believe we have fully answered your original request for information.

I appreciate that this may not be the result that you were hoping for, but
I am satisfied that our response meets the requirements of the FOIA.

Next steps

If you still feel that we have not responded appropriately to your
information request, you can complain to the [1]Information Commissioner’s
Office (ICO). You should make complaints to the ICO within six weeks of
receiving the outcome of an internal review. The easiest way to lodge a
complaint is through their website: [2]www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints

You can also write to the ICO at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9
5AF.

Kind Regards,

L.Griffiths

[3]cid:image002.png@01DA3EE3.C98ED3D0   L Griffiths

Freedom of Information

West Midlands Police

W: [4]west-midlands.police.uk

Working in partnership, making communities safer

[5]cid:image003.png@01DA3EE3.26FEC4E0[6]cid:image004.png@01DA3EE3.26FEC4E0[7]cid:image005.png@01DA3EE3.26FEC4E0[8]cid:image006.png@01DA3EE3.26FEC4E0[9]cid:image007.png@01DA3EE3.26FEC4E0[10]cid:image008.png@01DA3EE3.26FEC4E0

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

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints
4. https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/
5. https://www.facebook.com/westmidlandspol...
6. https://twitter.com/wmpolice
7. https://www.instagram.com/westmidlandspo...
8. https://www.linkedin.com/company/west-mi...
9. https://www.youtube.com/westmidlandspolice
10. https://tiktok.com/@officialwmp

Dear Mr Swift.

We have now concluded our response to your request for information regarding this subject.

Kind Regards,

L.Griffiths
Freedom of Information
West Midlands Police

show quoted sections