1. Education, Police & Justice
Enforcement Action Log
Severity ratings: Investigation underway
10
Total:
Monitoring to continue,
however meeting (Nov
Metropolitan Police
08) was constructive.
s17, s45 (advice & assistance (bianket exemptions) I 04/06/2008
Warning letter sent. Meeting to discuss issues held Open
Service JS
and IR) Six month follow
ENF0201053
meeting to be held in
May 2009

2. Pre
enforcement
action letter
04/06/08.
Case offcer
drafted text
OM of
for ON
Pre
PA sought to neither
confirm nor deny whethe enforcement
acti6nletter
info sought was held
04/06/08
Reasons for refusal Pre
07/02/20061 s 17 - application of
27/05/2008
ENF08150
provided in IR verbatim enforcement
additional
action letter
exemptions during to those provided in RN
04/06/08.
for the most par. RM
course of
Text drafted
difficulties identified at
investigation
forOM
later stage of
(almost 2 years
section of ON
later). Use of 30 & investigation
21+ 1+

3. Pre
enforcement
action letter
04/06/08
ENF08153 127/05/20081 Audit 1188116 20/11/20071 s45 (IR) - RN 1 Post Guidance
Jenny JS Pre
advises that IR can
Sanders enforcement
&1~~mtH~1t:::1 Metropolitan Police
take 3 months action letter
04/06/08

4. Result of Comments/issues
Comments
Request
Complainant I Reference I Date of
IR regarding encountered
forlR
request I refusal
Date of
during
processing
notice
investi ation
of re uest
Refused to provide
FS50088977 I 18/03/05 I 01/04/05 I 19/04/05 I 12/07/05 I None-
proced u rally to iea a copy of
the withheld info.
fine.
Only did so
following IN.
FS50129227 I 07/02/06 102/07/06
126/04/06 I 01/08/06 1 Late response
to info request
24/05/06 I 24/08/06 I Lengthy delay
125/05/06
124/05/06
to IR
02/06/05
10/10/05
09/08/05 21/08/06 1 to both
Late response
119/03/06
19/07/05
requests,
failed to deal
with first
request under
FOI. Lengthy
delay to IR.
FS50169737 I 08/01/07 113/02/07
109/02/07 I 29/06/07 I Late response
to request.
Lengthy delay
to IR.
Struggled to get
FS50106800 I 25/07/05 I 30/01/06 I 20/10/06 i Never
copy of info-
rec'd I to request. No
Late response
classed as 'secret'.
IR seen
Eventuallv oosted
thouah claim

5. a few examples.
to have done
Lack of co-op with
one.
caseworker -
Changing use
having to chase
of exemptions
responses. Have
& very poor
given access
PIT
outside of FOI.
arauments.
Lack of response
Late response
15/12/05
07/06/05
27/05/05
11/04/05
FS50099861
resulted in IN. This
to request to
is turn resulted in
request and
'r~'p.;r
.. angry phone call
IR-
from PA. No reply
complainant
was apparent from
chased
several times. IN, however when
.- Very poor chasêdit .seems to
,
have been lost in
PIT
~f( the post. The
arguments.
eventual reply
answered an
earlier letter rather
than the IN itself so
further questions
had to be raised!
Long delay in
Late
20/12/05
21/08/05
11/08/05
FS50101864 20/05/05
responding to
responses to
initial request for
request and
11 IR request. explanation and
info. Had to
Request not
threaten IN.
considered in

6. fulL. Five Brought in two
more exemptions
exemptions
cited, not (making total
enough claimed - seven!).
explanation or Do not wish to
provide info to
PIT given.
ICO, citing MOU
as reason-
sections 23 and 24
now relied upon.
Seems however,
that info is only
marked 'secret' or
not marked at alL.
This matter is stil
very much ongoing
so there may be
more to add...
Not clear
Not clear Not clear Have
FS50090852 several (Case included
more for
attempted to
r- demonstration than
do bare
direct action. Was
minimum
being handled by
rather than
Joe Ivatts, I've
assist
taken it fairly
complainant
in any recently.)
Different info has
manner.
been sent to comp
Requests
regarding same
have gone
request and MPS
unanswered

7. do not seem to be
or not been
able to explain this.
considered
under FOI. Slow in responding
to any issues
raised, do not
seem to know what
they have
responded to and
what they have
not. Have been
sent
correspondence by
Joe in an effort to
get responses to
all requests and
none received. I
have tried chasing
by telephone and
do not receive calls
back.
Update (05/02/08)
Nigel Shankster at
MPS took over this
matter and actually
brought it to a
conclusion. He
seems helpful and
willng. Case now
closed.
2 reqs: Needs to ask for I R
Na
Not
21/5/07 & None
FS50168043
-~

8. Metropolitan
requested
17/3/07 & I 15/6/07
7/6/07 Police
11/4/06 I 18/5/06
FS50127256 I 24/1/06 I 10/2/06 No issue re
20 days & IR
time
FS50153447 I 29/11/2006 I 29/1/2007 129/1/2007 17/3/07 20 days not
complied with,
IR time OK
FS50153447 11/9/06 27/9/06 4/10/06 5/12/06
FS50170141 24/02/07 14/03/07 22/03/07 04/04/07
Not made Not made Late response PA appeared to
FS50123037 14/02/2006 20/03/07
- said part on that realise it did hold
on that to request
of info relevant info only
point point
when we pointed it
requested
not held out from a related
case in Sept 07

9. ENF0201053 - The Metropolitan Police Service: Position (t 7 May 2008
Enforcement Log Entries:
ENF06029 Jul-Dec 06 106985 Chris JPL s45 Failed
Metropolitan Police 12/10/2005 Complaint audit to be
Williams to offer or undertaken
r. conduct a
proper
internal
review
ENF07106 Lisa
21/08/2007 86089 Metropolitan Police s1 -
JS 09/02/2005 Complaint
Adshead Information audit to be
.. held, s.46 undertaken
(Record
keepinq)
.
ON's served:
Case Ref: FS50087563
Date: 20/09/2006
Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service
Summary: The complainant requested details of policies and the individuals responsible for those policies within the public authority. The
Commissioner's decision in this matter is two fold in that the Public Authority has not dealt with the Complainant's request in accordance with
Part I of the Act in that it has failed to comply with its obligations under section 1 (1), section 10 and section 17. Further, the Public Authority has
applied section 21 and their application of this is in part, upheld by the Commissioner as he is satisfied that the policies are available but not the
individuals' names. The Public Authority is required by this Decision Notice to provide some of the information requested (as detailed below)
within 35 days.

10. Section of ActlEIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50087563
Case Ref: FS50087366
Date: 22/01/2007
Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to an investigation undertaken in the early 1990s
into allegations of corruption by employees of a local counciL. The public authority advised the complainant that although its records confirmed
that a file relating to this investigation had once been held, due to the time that had elapsed since the investigation took place this file had since
been weeded or destroyed. Having considered the information available the Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested by the
complainant is no longer held by the public authority.
Section of ActlEIR & Finding: FOl1 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50087366
Case Ref: FS50088977
Date: 08/01/2008
Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service
Summary: The complainant requested the agreement leading to the reinstatement following suspensio.Q.~of a senior officer at the public
authority. The public authority withheld this, citing sections 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal information) and 41 (information provided in
confidence). Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the public authority dropped its claim that section 38 applied. The Commissioner
finds that the exemption provided by section 40(2) is not engaged as, whilst the information in question does constitute personal information, its
disclosure would not breach the data protection principles. The Commissioner also finds that the exemption provided by section 41 is not
engaged as the information in question was not provided to the public authority from a third party. The public authority is required to disclose
the information initially withheld. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information TribunaL.
Section of ActlEIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50088977
Publication scheme - No recorded entry on CMEH, however likely to have adopted the ACPO modeL. Receipt of declaration - W3007984 on
interim system

11. CM EH Cases: Position cæ 08_05_08.
Search criteria: s50 cases I 01 Jan 07 - 08 May 08
FS50146176 I 26 April Unknown Unknown I Unknown . 1 st request unclear x-
2006 Insufficient
- info on file.
· 2nd request clearly requests information
22 May
2006 Delays pre-
· MPS response appears to be dated the 13 July
guidance
2006
· Extensions for the time to respond are sent on the
27 June, 18 September and the 2 November 2006
(pre guidance)
FS50146678 21 10 April Unknown Unknown x~
· MPS claim that request was not received until the
September 2007 ieo forwarded it Insufficient
2006 info on file.

12. FS50148975 02 June 19 July 19 March ./ - however,
21 August . s10 delay
2005 2005 2006 2006
- further case
progression
09 August 10 October needed
2005 - also 2005- . IR delay (pre-guidance)
request for response to
IR? IR? . s17 - RN of 19 July inadequate
· Despite initial acknowledgements to comp
explaining that the matter would be dealt with
under FOIA, the response explains that the matter
has been handled outside of the Act and that the
MPS are unwillng to release the info. This
amounts to an insufficient RN
· Some confusion surrounding number of requests!
RN's !IR's;. we appear to have contributed to this
19 January 121 January I Unknown · s17 - insufficient RN - application of exemptions ./ - in respect
Unknown
- - -- FS50150414 I 2007 2007 of refusal only
not explained! no IR details supplied
~ -- quot;-

13. FS50153447 29 29 January 29 January I 7 March ./ - in respect
. s10
November 2007 2007 2007 of delay and
2006 · Delay in responding as documents requested IR
.. contained in an off-site archive (14 Dec 06)
· Complaint procedure (RN of 29 Jan 07) advises
that 'In all possible circumstances the MPS wil
aim to respond to your complaint within three
months.'
· Some information released on review
( 7. Mar 07)
)~ · Inadequate IR - did not address application of
exemptions (7 Mar 07)
11
FS50154349 27 4 October 5 · Application of blanket exemptions? x - further
September September 2006 December investigation
2006 2006 2006 · IR very limited however - as MPS have opted to on
. applicabilty of
neither confirm or deny it could be argued that it
would be difficult to provide more detail exemptions
,quot;iquot;quot;
needed,
.fj particularly in
· RN limited - possibly for similar reasons
.~ :~g:
respect of
whether the

14. have been
applied as a
'blanket' and
on the
suitability of
s40 as the
subject of the
request is
deceased
· MPS claim that they have no record of request - x-
FS50157859 I 18 Unknown 18 I Unknown following the ie's intervention, it seems that the Insufficient
November December request was processed under DPA info on file.
2006 2006
./ - in respect
. s10
FS50167718 I 10 May Unknown Unknown Unknown of delay
2007 · Staff leave cited as a reason for delay
· Request appears to have been made by a staff
member and this may have influenced the way in
which it was handled

15. FS50168043 I 17 March 21 May 7 June · Chain of correspondence - (chronology of IR's &
Unknown x-
2007 2007 2007 RN's in particular) is muddled Insufficient
.. info on file.
· See related case FS50170141
FS50169014 I 30 March 23 May 31 May 12 June · Appear to have carried out PIT in relation to third
2007 2007 2007 2007 x - no
party personal data (RN of 23 May 2007)
substantive
issues
· Have provided advice and assistance (RN of 23
M~y 2007)
8 January 9 February
.. I FS50169737 13 29 June ./ - in respect
· Delay in conducting IR (part of which is post
2007 2007 February 2007 guidance) of IR delay.
2007 Investigation
may shed
· RN limited - however the decision to neither
more light on
confirm or deny may be a factor in this
the
applicability of
· IR upholds original decision despite complainants
exemptions I
assertions that some of the information is already
info already
in the public domain
available in
the public
domain

16. . IR upholds decision to neither confirm or deny
I FS50169899 119 June
1 Unknown I Unknown
I
2007 I Undated I Insufficient
X-
- info on file.
24 February 14 March 22 March
FS50170141 Unknown Not clear whether IR has been conducted
. X-
I
2007 2007 2007 Insufficient
--
I info on file.
I
22 May 19 July
FS50170294 Unknown Unknown . Several exemptions appear to have been applied,
./ - in respect
2007 2007 'with no explanation as to why - very muddled RN
- ,'. of s10 delay
which does not reflect fully the requirements of
and RN
s17
s10 delay
.
18 May
1 May 2007 23 April 24 July
FS50170381 . Part of request processed separately under DPA- X-
and others 2007 2007 and a 2007 the RN appears to imply that all of the requested corresponden
. number of
thereafter? ce on file
info will be dealt with as a SAR - however some of
times unclear
the info, such as the cost of the inquiry etc
thereafter appears to be FOIA
Email of 5 June 2007 advises 'The MPS
.
endeavour to respond to FOIA appeals within 3
months'.

17. . IR declines to confirm or deny in respect of
Section 40, Section 30 and Section 31
. Very muddled chronology of correspondence
. MPS reply in respect of SAR suggests that some
of the info requested is not personal data, and this
appear to contradict earlier responses
16 June
I X-
MPS' initial response of the 20 June 2007 app-ears
FS50172692 quot;,
corresponden
2007 'i · to supply the complainant with forms for his
2007 I Unknown
110 August i 2007?
26 June
ce on file
completion but does not address the requestitself
unclear
i
Very muddled case
.
X-
.
Unknown Unknown Unknown Possible non-response
6 July 2007
FS50173912
Insufficient
info on file.
. X - no
. Complainant directed to submit a SAR in respect
14 August
16 July
FS50174492 27
September September substantive
of part of the request - however it appears that the
2007
2007
.. issues
MPS have also adopted to neither confirm or deny
2007 2007
whether information is held

18. · IR upholds original decision - appears to make a
distinction between release to the 'world' and to
the complainant in respect of the SAR route
· Complainant was advised by IC to exhaust SAR
24 July ./ - in
26 July
__ I FS50176308 26 July Unknown · RN advises complainant to submit a SAR
2007 2007 2007 respect of
SAR
· In the IC's opinion the information requested was
not personal data and as such the responses confusion
provided were insufficient
· The complainants letter of the 26 July 2007 should
have triggered an internal review
18 July 2 August
~i FS50178276 8 August 18 x - no
· RN limited, however likely to be due to the MPS'
2007 2007 2007 September decision to neither confirm or deny substantive
2007 issues.
Investigation
· Complainants request for IR challenges the
required to
decision to neither confirm or deny on the basis
that the existence of the information is already determine
applicability of
known publicly
exemptions

19. · The IR replies stating the fact that the existence of
the information is publicly known does not
necessarily mean it is held by the MPS
FS50178467 I 17 August Unknown Unknown . Alleged s10
Unknown x-
2007 Insufficient
.. info on file.
22 May
FS50179851 26 July 31 July Unknown x - no
· Request made to a police stàtion - response sent
200,&¡
2007 2007 from the 'Sutton Partnership' - advised that info substantive
.. was not held by Police and that the response had issues.
been forwarded to the Council
. Possible inappropriate transferral of request in
terms of keeping the complainant informed, and
failure to recognise a request for review but both
are minor issues in the context of this complaint
FS50185687 I 27 April 30 July
28 June ./ - in respect
7 . s10
2007 2007 2007 September of s10 and IR
2007 . Delayed IR (post guidance) delay
.

20. . Clarification sought on the 30 March - dates on
I 15 March
I FS50186040
116 August 18 October I
2007 118 May
2007 2007 2007 ./ - in respect
which this was provided unclear and as such, it is
- difficult to asses whether the MPS breached s 10 of IR delay
Delay in providing IR (post guidance)
.
26 April
FS50186880 25 May Unknown Unknown . Insufficient information on file
2007 2007 X-
I Insufficient
- info on file.
Unknown Unknown Unknown MPS contend that the request was not received
. X-
i FS50186901 114
November Insufficient
.. 2007 info on file.
15 January
FS50188116 20 Unknown Unknown . MPS seek clarification on the 23 November 2007 X-
November 2008 Insufficient
.. 2007 info on file.
. The information was released to the complainant,
but date on which clarification was submitted is
unclear

21. 21 7 January vquot; - in respect
. No attempt to offer advice and assistance in
2007 November 2007 respect of the application of s 12 (see refusal of the of s16/ s45
I FS50190522 I ~ePtember
114 August
2007 2007 4 September) A&A
-
FS50190668 18 October 12 15 17 January Delayed IR (post guidance)
.
2007 November November 2008 Ivquot; - indelay
of IR respect
2007 2007
07 March
FS50199925 Unknown 23 Unknown . Insufficient information on file
2008 February
'.' i ,-~l
2008 X-
I Insufficient
info on file.

22. Cases predating 01 Jan 2007 taken from Team 2's issue log
FS50088977 I 18 March 12 July IR delay (pre-dates guidance)
.
2005 I 01 April
2005 I again on
01 and 2007 1./ -IN respect
of in
19 April IN issued following refusal to provide ICO with
.
2005 withheld information (1 August 2007)
(following
meeting) I I . RN is limited, however relatively early days in
respect of the Act's implementation
. IR extremely limited and as a result not
conversant with the s45 Code
. DN issued - finds in breach of sections 1 (1) (a) -
subject to an appeal
07 February 2 July
FS50129227 26 April 1 August s10 delay
. .. - in respect
2006 2006 2006 2006
.. ofs10, s17
. Delays in responding to ICO I difficulties in and delays in
responding to
contacting MPS (see letter of 16 January 2008)
ICO
Exemptions introduced during investigation,
.
therefore a breach of s17 (1) (see email of the 24
January 2008)

23. FS50139215 24 May 24 May 25 May 24 August -/ - in respect
. IR delay (pre-guidance)
2006 2006 2006 2006 of s17
Refusal of the 24 May fails to meet the
.
requirements of s17 (no appeal rights/poor
explanation of exemptions)

24. FS50106800 25 July 30 January Various Unknown -/ - in respect
. Although refusal was provided on the 30 January
2005 2006 2006, MPS did invite the complainant to view the of s10, s17,
documentation provided that an undertaking not to s45 and
disclose certain parts of the information was restrictive
signed (letter of the 31 August 2005) approach
· In connection with the above, MPS provided a
form for the complainant to sign which made
reference to information which is exempt under
s31 and s38 of the Act
· A request for review is submitted on the 22
September 2005 in relation to the undertaking -
this should have been dealt with under s45
· A second request for review is sent on the 21
December 2005
· A third request for review is submitted on the 19
October 2006
· Material sought is over 100 years old and as such,
some of the exemptions cited (s31) cannot apply
· Refusal of 30 January 2006 contains limited PIT
arguments
· Co-operation of MPS during investigation poor
· Numerous additional exemptions added during
course of investigation

25. õ-
Q)
0.1'
C/ ..
Q) C/
.. -
c: ..
0
.- C/ LO
quot;~ t quot;quot;
I
0 C/
c: Q)
;:
C/
Q)
0. ro
ro
~ r5
..
~ Q)
E
.. ..
..
Q) .0 Q)
Q) C/
.. c:
o +-
ã; t
£ LO .E
0)
.. ro
c:
c:
C/ Q)
.9 C/
.. quot;0
C/ 0 Q)
õ
c:
o ..
quot;0 ro Q) 0) ïñ
..
+-
Q) c: 0.
..
C/ 0 ::
tó .!: c: .-
::
o
ro:; .- C/
o quot;0
o
E -g C/
quot;0 2
Q) ro I'
0. C/
~
- c: 0 z ro Q) .-
~ 0)0
Õ
quot;0 c:
Ü
o .. ~ ro
..
C/ ïñ N c:
C/
C/
Q) .Q
¡t 0 1i
ro Q) Q)
:.
~ quot;0 § ro 0 ro
X Õ. +-
quot;0 I-
8 quot;0
Q) E o
-0 0.
c: .$ -: Q)
o
Õ Q)
a.
.. +-
.Q ';'0 Q) ên C/
Q) Q)
o
C/ X
::
ro c: N Q)
quot;0
Õ
.. a. quot;0
:: Q)
~ c: Q)
quot;0 Q)
o0 .~ +- ê Q)
E'- Q) c: C/
o o
.. ~ ..
0.ro
o
0.
t - t g- c: i5
0
o 0.. 'Ë
ü 0.
.. :.
c: ..
~ ..
.!:.E 0 ;: C/ C/ C/
o +-
o
.. ro 0) Q) Q)
..
15£ .. ~ ro
~
c: .. E
co .!
o
Q) .. Q)
.E ~ ro
.. c: .. ID i :;
(' quot;0
Q) C/
o o c:
C/
C/
.. ro .. C/ quot;0 quot;0
C/ Q)
Q) 0 0. 1: 0
quot;0 quot;0
~0
t c: Q)
O'm '- ~ 0:
quot;0 Q) Q) Q)
~ .. c: ~ ~ .- :¡
:: :i
.. ro - .. ~
E
O c: Q) ::
0: ~
Q) 0. quot;E
00 .. ~ o
'-LO 0) quot;- quot;Ë
~ ..
Q)
000 ;:
EE0 E0
c:
.. 0 c; e a.
Q) Q)
o o
.. t
c: o C/
z~
..
0:
.:
(f ü ~ C/ N (f ~
I- ~
. . . . . . . .
. .
..
Q)
.0
E
ÜO
Q) LO
LO Q) 0
.. 0 N
Q)
c: LO
:: 0
-: N
I' 0
'.
,
;:
ro
~ LO
0
I' 0
NN
'C
o.LO
.: 0
0
.. N
..
..
co
co
0)
0)
o
o
LO
(f
LL
. ~.

26. 20 May
FS50101864 ./ - in respect
11 August 21 August 20 . s10
2005 2005 2005 December of s10, s17,
- 2005 s45
IR delay (pre-guidance)
.
IN threatened
.
s17 - poor refusal, lack of explanation for PIT
.
given the number of exemptions cited. Doesn't
appear to consider the request in its entirety
MPS reply of the 11 October 2005 appears to
.
have overlooked the IR element of the
complainants refusal
, ,_.~
~ ..- IR does little to suggest that a truly fresh
.
consideration of matters was undertaken
Additional exemptions applied during course of
.
investigation - reluctance to provide ICO with all
of the withheld information

27. Unknown Unknown
Various
FS50090852 Unknown .. - in respect
Initial response from MPS (09 September 2005) -
.
of muddled
advises that 'The issues you raise are not covered
(including 7
-. September by FOIA' responses
2005)
MPS appears to have muddled responses and is
.
unclear on what information has already been
provided. In mitigation, it seems that the requests
themselves were fairly confusing (47 requests in
total, submitted at various times)
11 April
2 February 18 May
Numerous
FS50127256 .. - in respect
MPS response advises that info not held 'as may'quot;
.
2006
2006 2006 have been destroyed' ofs46
(including
- 24 January
2006) MPS appear to have sought clarification via the
.
iea from the complainant. This occurred during
the investigation and arguably should have been
carried out from the outset
Suggestion of record management difficulties
.
(letters of the 2 & 7 April 2008) - no centralised
records for historical records? (letter of 18 April
2008)
. Reluctance to provide iea with relevant info, as
suggested in previous cases
i I i

28. 14 February
FS50123037 Unknown Unknown Irrelevant - case concerns the Metropolitan Police
Unknown N/A
2006 Authority, although there may be issues in respect of the
- correct transferral of requests
Clarification required:
Length of complaint procedure (Rosenbaum complaint and others)

29. ENF0201053 - The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) -
Recommendation for progression of case
Cases considered:
2005 í
2 Enforcement Log entries (1069851'86089) - both relate to requests from
30 cases received from 01 January 2007 to 08 May 2008 (including those
falling within this date range from the Team 2 issue log)
9 cases from Team 2 issues log which predate the above
Total: 41* (one of which relates to MPA but is included on account of the
possible transferral of request issues)
* this does not represent the total number of complaints received about the
MPS (approx 61 s50 cases)
Patterns arising i notable points:
s 10 breaches
4 o
3
3
.- 129227 __ 167718--
148975 -
-
.. 146176 --. 170294-
106800 -
-
153447 -
185687 -
99861-'-
.
101864 -
087563-quot;
(ON issued)

30. 517
· Poor explanation of application of exemptions in the context of the
information withheld (148975 _2005 /150414__ 2007)
. Poor PIT's (099861__ 2005)
. Extension of time to respond to request without explaining which
exemption is applicable (17 (1)) (146176'-2006)
. Application of blanket exemptions - particularly s24 (national security),
s30 (investigations), s31 (law enforcement), s38 (health and safety). In
one case (10680~2005) s31 was applied to information
which was over 100 years old, in another s38 was applied to the cost of
postponing the Royal Wedding (099861_2005)
~006)
. Introduction of additional exemptions during investigation ( 129227
545
. IR's do not appear to take a truly fresh look at matters, although in
mitigation there are examples of information which has been released
on review (153447 2006)
. Examples of requests dealt with outside the Act's parameters (148975
72005 / 170381_(OPA) 2007/ 174492_(OPA)
2007/176308 (OPA) 2007/106800 2005)
. Post guidance IR delays: 4
13Feb07
169737 Partly post
29 June 07 90 days +
guidance
..
¡
2007).
.
185687 29 days
30 July 07 7 Sept 07 Need to
determine
:
whether
2007)
extension
justified

31. 186040(_ 16 Aug 07 38 days Need to
8 act 07
2007) determine
whether
extension
justified
-
190668 40 days
15 Nov 07 17 Jan 08 Need to
determine
(allowing for
2007) whether
bank
extension
holidays)
justified
s46
· Delays in responding due to inform~tion held in off-site archives
(153447 2006)
. Some difficulties in determining the fate of historical information
(127256 m ; 2006)
2005)
. Record keeping raised as an issue within CEAF (86089
Relationship with ICO
2005/
. IN's issued or threatened in various cases (88977
101864. 2005)
· Numerous instances of questioning why ICO required to see withheld
information
Conclusions:
The most notable characteristic of MPS' responses is the application of
stringent exemptions, some of which appear to have been applied in a blanket
manner. Whilst there is certainly room for improvement in this respect, this is
something that could be approached informally at the present time. Such an
approach is supported by the need to ensure that we fully understand the
sensitivities of the information the MPS holds before drawing further
conclusions from the use of exemptions.
In respect of the procedural failings, there is room for improvement in respect
of refusal notices, but I am not particularly concerned about the MPS'
adherence to section 10 at present.
There is also scope to for the MPS to develop their approach to internal

32. reviews. At present they are failing to demonstrate that they are taking a truly
fresh consideration of matters. Additionally, their current complaint procedure
does not appear to have adopted the timescales recommended by the
Commissioner.
In respect of MPS' relationship with the ICO, there is scope for a more
positive relationship between the two parties - however given our experience
with other PA's I'm not overly concerned that it departs significantly from the
norm.
is a problem with the handling of
Finally, the MPS have suggested that there
requests on account of the un-centralised process. The MPS appear receptive
to the ICO's advice on this issue - see email of 06 February 2008 from DW to
JPL.
Recommendation:
That the Enforcement Team approaches MPS on an informal basis to
highlight the following concerns:
o Refusal Notices (
o Timescales for IR's I Reconsideration of issues at IR
o Use of blanket exemptions
Should the informal approach fail to elicit an appropriate response, formal
action may be considered.
Date I Officer: 13 May 2008 - Jo Stones, FOI Enforcement Officer

33. Page 1 of 1
From: Joanne Stones
Sent: 13 May 2008 16:58
To: Jo Pedder
Subject: The Met
Hi Jo,
case: ENF0201053.
Just to let you know the reference for the MPS Enforcement
letter to them is drafted and send you a copy. I've agreed with J-P that the
I'll be in touch once the informal
main topics it will cover are as follows:
Refusal Notices
Timescales for IRs / Reconsideration of issues at IR
Apparent use of blanket exemptions
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss further
Jo
5344
fie://C:temp(Ref. ENF0201053) .html 01/0412009

34. Page 1 of2
From: Joanne Stones
sent: 27 May 2008 13:39
To: Jo Pedder
Subject: The Met - Enforcement Letter
HiJo,
Attached is a draft of the letter I'm planning to send out to the Met later this week. As it references a number of cases
which are still under investigation, I thought it may be helpful for you to see it.
requests:
The letter covers the following issues arising from the MPS' handling of
Explanation of the application of exemptions is limited or generic (including reference to the duty to confirm or
deny)
Application of additional exemptions during the course of investigation
Timescale for internal reviews
Reconsideration of issues at review
Although the number of issues covered is relatively small, they are novel and the need to include examples has resulted
in a rather lengthy letter. The cases used as examples within the letter are listed in the table below,
If you (or anyone else on your team) would like an explanation as to why a particular case has been included or more
general detials about our approach feel free to give me a shout.
helpfuL.
Hope this if
Jo
5344
Offcer
Case / Complainant ,Status
quot;' quot;
Carolyn quot;owes Open
FS50106800 -
Closed
FS50170294 - Helen Jarman
0
Closed
FS50150414 - Aaminah Khan
,
. FOI Team 2 Open
FS50154349 -
FOI Team 2 . ,Open
FS50169737 -
quot;,quot;
Elizabeth Hogan Open
FS50129227 -
fie:! IC:temp(Ref. ENF020 1053 J .html 01104/2009

35. Page 2 of2
lo Pedder Open
FS50101864 -
a i:
¡
FOI Team 2
FS50153447 - Open
FS50188116- Jennifer Sanders Closed
fie:IIC:temp(Ref. ENF0201053) .html 01/04/2009

36. · Reasonable opportunity for you to inspect a record containing the
information; and/or '
· A digest or summary of the information in permanent form or in another
form acceptable to you
We will comply with your preferred form of presentation as far as it is
reasonably practicable. In determining whether it is reasonably practicable,
we will review all the circumstances, including the cost.
Where we are unable to comply with your preferred format, we will notify as to
the reasons why. Where you have not specified your preferred method of
communication, we will provide the information by any means reasonable in
the circumstances.
Where a request for information has been made successfully, we will advise
you in writing of the following:
. The decision;
. The date on which it was made;
. The name and designation of the pèrson who dealt with the request;
. Form and manner of access; and '
· Your right to complain, including details of the internal complaints
procedure and the Information Commissioner's details.
Where a Request is Refused
Where we receive a request for information and its release is refused, we will
advise you, the applicant, within 20 days, of the following:
. The decision;
. The day on which it was made;
. The name and designation of the person who dealt with the request;
. The grounds for refusing the request, e.g. the application of an exemption,
in the public interest, cost of compliance;
. When exemption/s are used, the specific exemption used and the reasons
for using the exemption;
· When the public interest test has been considered, the reasons why it was
applied;
. Any other issues relevant to the deèision or matters that were taken into
consideration; and
· Details for the internal procedures for dealing with complaints and your
right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision notice.
Note: The Police Service is not obliged to state why an exemption
applies if by doing so, exempt information would be revealed.
12

37. Dealing with Vexatious or Repeat Requests
The Police Service can refuse to process an FOI request if we consider it to
be either vexatious or repeated, or both.
If this is the case, we will inform you within 20 days of receiving the request.
At the same time, we will provide details about our internal procedures for
dealing with complaints and your right to apply to the Information
Commissioner for a decision notice.
If a notice has already been issued that a request is repeated or vexatious, we
will not send out a further notice.
Where a second request is received for information that has already been
provided and the second request is identical or substantially similar, we wil
not comply with the request unless a reasonable time has elapsed between
the two requests.
The Complaints Procedure
Our decisions and actions on any request will be logged and recorded. These
will be retained, together with any other pertinent information in the event of a
complaint.
Structure of Review
We have rigorous procedures in place to ensure that the original decision-
maker wil provide an independent reviewer with all the information relevant to
processing the complaint.
We will review the following aspects of the request:
. Timescales.
. Was the applicant kept informed?
· Was the applicant helped to locate information if not held by Police
Service?
· Was the response communicated in the format preference of the
applicant? If not, why not?
· Was a transfer or partial transfer of request made? If so, was this handled
correctly?
· Was a fees notice served and the principles of the charging regime
applied?
. Was a refusal notice served?
· If the request appeared to be vexatious, was the correct procedure
followed and the correct decision reached?
· Was the information requested sourced correctly?
· Was there a need to obtain additional information?
· Were all systems and information directories searched in response to the
information requested?
· Were any problems encountered in obtåining the information from the
information owners?
13