Quote:

I may be wrong but don't such administrative falures fall into the 'complaints against police' catagory and need to be the subject of separate complaints (i.e. outwith the FOI procedures).

An update.

IC have just written to me to say I have to wait till herts constab  internal review proceedure has been completed before I can do a section 50 complaint.

50. - (1) Any person (in this section referred to as "the complainant") may apply to the Commissioner for a decision whether, in any specified respect, a request for information made by the complainant to a public authority has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Part I.

     (2) On receiving an application under this section, the Commissioner shall make a decision unless it appears to him-

 

     (a) that the complainant has not exhausted any complaints procedure which is provided by the public authority in conformity with the code of practice under section 45,

 

     (b) that there has been undue delay in making the application,

 

     (c) that the application is frivolous or vexatious, or

 

     (d) that the application has been withdrawn or abandoned.

     (3) Where the Commissioner has received an application under this section, he shall either-

 

     (a) notify the complainant that he has not made any decision under this section as a result of the application and of his grounds for not doing so, or

 

     (b) serve notice of his decision (in this Act referred to as a "decision notice") on the complainant and the public authority.

     (4) Where the Commissioner decides that a public authority-

 

     (a) has failed to communicate information, or to provide confirmation or denial, in a case where it is required to do so by section 1(1), or

 

     (b) has failed to comply with any of the requirements of sections 11 and 17,

  the decision notice must specify the steps which must be taken by the authority for complying with that requirement and the period within which they must be taken.

     (5) A decision notice must contain particulars of the right of appeal conferred by section 57.

     (6) Where a decision notice requires steps to be taken by the public authority within a specified period, the time specified in the notice must not expire before the end of the period within which an appeal can be brought against the notice and, if such an appeal is brought, no step which is affected by the appeal need be taken pending the determination or withdrawal of the appeal.

     (7) This section has effect subject to section 53.

I just spoke the FOI officer himself with regards to the status of my FOI request and he said that it was going to the Internal Reviews panel at the end of the month.

I asked him why the 20 days timescale didnt apply to them and he said that I would have to make a complaint to the police force. I asked how I would go about it and he said to call an 0845 number!!!!

Letter received today, dated Oct 4, following the internal review:
+++++++++++
Hertfordshire Constabulary's Freedom of Information Review panel met on Sept 27th to review your request for appeal.

The review panel considered your appeal and up held that further information in respect of questions 4, 10, 11 and 12 is to be released under the Freedom of Information Act 2005 (sic). A response shall be forwarded to you within 20 working days and will be with you no later than 25th October 2005.
++++++++

So some progress at least, but I think I'll manage to contain myself until I see the quality of the "further information."

Sarcastic sods franked the envelope with an advert for their 0845 number, so obviously no road to Damascus conversion just yet!

This is the response to my internal review request.

APPARENTLY it was sent to me by royal mail on the 29th, amazingly I never recived it. Proof of posting is not proof of receipt,

BY EMAIL 12 OCT 05
On Tuesday 27th September Hertfordshire Constabulary's Freedom of Information Review Panel met to consider your appeal dated 28thJuly 2005 in respect for not meeting the 20 working day deadline under S 10 - Time for compliance with request.
The Review Panel noted that there was a delay in responding to your request for information and this was due to ensuring that the information provided to you would be accurate.
However, the Information Compliance Office should have written to you to inform you of the delay and expected date of when you would receive the information requested. The Information Compliance Office have now reviewed and revised its procedures and will be notifying requestors if there is to be a delay in responding to the request and when they can expect to receive the information requested.
If you feel that Hertfordshire Constabulary have failed to meet your rights under The Freedom of Information Act 2000 then under Section 50 - Application for decision by
Commissioner, you are entitled to contact the Information Commissioners Office as to whether or not Hertfordshire Constabulary acted in accordance with the Act.

The Information Commissioner can refuse an application to review a decision on the grounds of "undue delay in making an application". It is therefore in your best interest, if you wish to make an application to the Information Commissioner to do so as soon as possible
from receiving this final response from Hertfordshire constabulary.
-------

Well they havent commented about why they exempted 2.2 and 2.3 of my original request (listed above). This is what I thought the internal review was supposed to do? I suspect this was yet another cock-up, which they are trying to brush under the carpet.

The question numbering got a little confused as I misnumbered one of my queries - don't read anything into the discrepancy between my post further up this page and the question numbers in the last one.

Re: Question 8 & 9 revised answer:
Quote:

Don't understand that bit? Why would they think that? ???

The response continues:
Quote:

But a non-geographical number is by definition, non-geographical, so how can you be a national distance away from a number which isn't tied to a geographical location??

Below is my response from the IC which upholds the 'vexatious request' argument. I am seeking advice from those with specialist knowledge about how to pursue this. Thanks.

<<
I have now concluded my investigation into the way Hertfordshire Constabulary (the Constabulary) handled your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

You alleged that the Constabulary failed to respond to your request for information within the twenty working day time limit, as required by section 10 of the Act.  Your initial request was made on 22nd June 2005 and yet you did not receive a response until 12th October 2005.  The Constabulary has advised me that its systems have been searched there is no record of your emails dated 22nd June and 20th July 2005.  However you have provided these emails in support of your complaint and I am therefore satisfied that the Constabulary breached section 10 in this respect.  I have asked the Constabulary to ensure there is no reason why emails sent to the foi@herts.pnn.police.uk email account should not be received, to assist those wishing to make FOI requests in the future.    

You complained about the Constabulary’s refusal to provide you with information in response to your FOI request on the grounds section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) applied; namely that the request was vexatious.  I am satisfied that the Constabulary correctly applied section 14 in this case.  I will outline the reasons for this below.

The Constabulary initially refused to provide information on the grounds your request was repeated / vexatious.  I asked for clarification on exactly which of these provisions was relied upon, and the Constabulary confirmed that your request had been considered vexatious and not repeated.

Public authorities are not required to provide information in response to FOI requests where the request can be considered vexatious.  There is no definition of ‘vexatious’ within the Act, however the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has produced guidance to assist in the interpretation of this section.  It is available at the following link:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/documentUploads/AG 22 Vexatious Paper - Final.pdf

As you will see from this paper, the use of the vexatious provision is likely to be upheld by the ICO if the request:

·      does not have any serious purpose or value;
·      is designed to cause disruption or annoyance;
·      has the effect of harassing the authority;
·      can otherwise be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable.

It will generally be possible to identify a request as vexatious if:

·      the applicant explicitly makes clear it is his intention to cause a public authority inconvenience by making a request;
·      the authority has independent knowledge of the intention of the applicant to cause inconvenience by making a request.

I asked the Constabulary to justify its use of the vexatious provision.  The Constabulary provided printouts from messages posted on a website called ‘SayNoto0870.com’, which it alleges were posted by you.  Extracts from the message boards are as follows:

·      On 21st June 2005: “Irrespective of whether it gives you the info you want, it costs these organisations a fortune to respond to FOI requests from the public”;
·      On 22nd June 2005: “If these idiotic departments are shifting to discriminatory numbering systems, then I have no hesitation in submitting FOI requests that will probably cost them at least a hundred pounds to process and hopefully much more”;
·      On 12th October 2005: “I’m actually pleased that they have issued a refusal notice”; and “My appeal is ready to go, I’m just seeing who I can copy this into for maximum effect”.

I asked the Constabulary to substantiate why it believed these messages were posted by you.  The following was provided as justification:

·      The correspondence from the Constabulary has always been extremely applicant specific and has appeared immediately on the ‘Say No to 0870’ website;
·      The username of the person posting the messages is ‘idb’ and all correspondence to the Constabulary has been under the name of [me]’;
·      The messages state that ‘idb’ is writing from Miami;
·      You have stated your intention to “make all FOI requests available in the public domain”.

I am therefore satisfied that the messages posted on the ‘Say No to 0870’ website demonstrate the request made to the Constabulary was vexatious.  I am also satisfied that the Constabulary has provided sufficient evidence that the messages were posted by you.

Section 50 of the Act obliges the Commissioner to issue a Decision Notice unless the person making the complaint is prepared to withdraw it.  I would therefore invite you to withdraw your complaint, as any Decision Notice issued will find in favour of the Constabulary on the section 14 issue.  The Commissioner will not issue a decision simply in respect of the section 10 issue in this case, as to do so would serve no useful purpose.

If you disagree with my decision and wish to have the opportunity to appeal to the Information Tribunal please let me know and I shall draft a Decision Notice which reflects the arguments advanced above.

I look forward to hearing from you.
>>