Freedom of Information Requests

The awkward questions put to the police and related sectors

Lancashire Constabulary

foi-request-waiting

Operation Malaya

/ , / 0 Comments

Status: Waiting

  • Question: 25th May 2019

    Dear Lancashire Constabulary,

    (this duplicates my FOI made on ‘WhatDoTheyKnow’ https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/operation_malaya_2 which I have recently been notified they Lancashire constabulary reported my FOI request to the WhatDoTheyKnow support team for some reason)

    Please treat this as the same request (as made 20th December 2020) and direct all replies to me at paul@*****

    I would like you to provide me with all information regarding the task force, ‘Operation Malaya’.

    The Police and Crime Commissioner confirmed Operation Malaya does exist and was set up 13th June 2017.

    This police task force operation was discussed in open court on 2rd April 2019 and therefore is of public record. It was discussed by a man named George Vella who informed the court he was involved in the operation and is privy to the details.

    In 2019, by way of a FOI request, Lancashire constabulary identified two men, George Vella and Darren Hogan as operatives within Operation Malaya.

    In a further civil hearing in open and public court in March 2020, a serving Lancashire police Inspector was asked on oath to confirm the names, the Inspector disclosed another operative named Neil Wilkes, this name was never disclosed in the original FOI request and therefore Lancashire constabulary failed to abide by the FOI rules previously.

    Operation Malaya was confirmed to have spanned a period of in excess of four months by full-time Lancashire police officers.

    I am therefore asking for ;

    1. the names of ALL operatives of Operation Malaya.
      2. the names/collar number and rank of all officers who were involved in Operation Malaya.
      3. The total cost of Operation Malaya to the public purse.
      4. Who authorised Operation Malaya name/rank
      5. The purpose of Operation Malaya in the context it was a dedicated operation/task force of such magnitude
      6. The outcome of Operation Malaya
      7. Information on what constitutes a ‘task force’ creation
      8. How Operation Malaya complied with point 7.
      9. Identification of other police forces that cooperated with Operation Malaya.

    If it is not possible to provide the information requested due to the information exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section 12, please provide advice and assistance, under your Section 16 obligations, as to how I can refine my request to be included in the scope of the Act. In any case, if you can identify ways that my request could be refined please provide further advice and assistance to indicate this.

    I look forward to your response within 20 working days, as stipulated by the Act.

    Yours faithfully,
    Paul Ponting

Deadline 10th January 2021

Charging Decision & Autoirity

/ / 0 Comments

Charging decision & authority

Days
Hours

Dear Lancashire Constabulary,

I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information:

  1. Who makes a decision to charge a suspect within Lancashire police (name, position or rank)?
  2. Who, if necessary, who authorises the charging decision of point 1 (name, position or rank)?
  3. What obligations do both decision maker (and authority signature) have when making a charging decision?

To help with any misunderstanding, I offer the following to assist;

If a charging decision is made by police (not CPS), what is the Lancashire police policy on who should make a decision to charge?

Would the decision to charge require further authorisation by a more senior officer?

If so, under what circumstances and by whom (name, position or rank)

Would there be any circumstances where a charging decision for a summary only offence be made (or authorised) by the Chief Constables office? 

I would also ask for clarification relating to an officer who puts their signature on a charging decision.  What I mean is, if an officer of any rank signs a decision to charge, or indeed gives authorisation of a decision to charge, does that infer that the officer has actually digested what they are in fact authorising or, would there be any circumstances where an officer will sign oblivious to the charges/circumstances?

My understanding is that a signature of authority is a legal acceptance of the decision made if there are any legal challenges to that decision.

If it is not possible to provide the information requested due to the information exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section 12, please provide advice and assistance, under your Section 16 obligations, as to how I can refine my request to be included in the scope of the Act. In any case, if you can identify ways that my request could be refined please provide further advice and assistance to indicate this.

I look forward to your response within 20 working days, as stipulated by the Act.

If you have any queries please don’t hesitate to contact me via email and I will be happy to clarify what I am asking for.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Ponting

foi-request-refused

Justification of funds for Operation Malaya (via police)

/ , / 0 Comments

Status: Refused

  • Question: 15th May 2019

    Dear Lancashire Police 

    I refer to a Subject Access Request I made to you where you have confirmed that a team of dedicated Lancashire police officers were taken from actively duty and assigned full time to work on Operation Malaya.  This was from June 2017 to September 2017, a period of 4 months.  I understand that there were over 20 serving police officers who during this time made repeated trips to the West Midlands and Bedfordshire.  

    Lancashire police have confirmed that this dedicated operation was created specifically for two individuals who they freely named in the disclosure as Darren Hogan and George Vella.

    They claim the task force was created specifically to investigate complaints that these two individuals had made about me.  Lancashire police claim that the complaints were ‘complex’.  I understand the unfounded allegations were of harassment.  I have asked for further clarification of the complexity of the allegations and will be asking why I was never questioned relating to these complex allegations resulting in a 4 month dedicated operation involving so many police officers.

    Even though this highly costly police operation was setup based on allegations made by these two men, I bring to your attention that Darren Hogan was, at the time this operation was created, was on bail and had been  charged with Malicious Communications and Harassment against my wife and I.  Even so, he was approached by Lancashire police to enrol him into a task force against his victim.

    George Vella was also the subject of numerous complaints I had to make to police, one of the complaints was that George Vella openly called me by inference a paedophile on a facebook group, an act of malicious communications, and Lancashire police took ZERO action against him for this but like Hogan, Lancashire police approached Vella and enrolled him in a task force against his victim.

    My question to you under the laws of Freedom of Information is,

    • What this operation cost?
    • The rationale for allowing such an expense out of lancashire police funds.
    • Rationale why 20 or more serving police officers were taken from normal duty to investigate harassment for 4 solid months.
    • Who authorised this outlandish expense.

    If you are unaware of the Subject Access Request disclosure made by Lancashire police that I have outlined above, please let me know and I will disclose it to you via this Freedom of Information request.

    I remind you that I am a repeat victim of crime which you are aware of. 

    I also remind you that Lancashire police settled a claim I brought against them for numerous malicious offences against me by police officers and I was awarded a substantial sum of money to ‘settle out of court’. 

    You are aware that I allege I am targeted by Lancashire police due to the fact I published the identity of a police informant.  This is clarified by the fact Lancashire police charged me with malicious communications for publishing this identity which the courts found me not guilty as, for malicious communications to be proven, the communication must be false.  I provided evidence that this police informant was indeed an informant by his own confession which satisfied the courts.

    This should show, on balance, that Lancashire police do in fact have a motive to ‘frame me’ and this is what Operation Malaya was setup to do but failed.

    If it is not possible to provide the information requested due to the information exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section 12, please provide advice and assistance, under your Section 16 obligations, as to how I can refine my request to be included in the scope of the Act. In any case, if you can identify ways that my request could be refined please provide further advice and assistance to indicate this.

    I look forward to your response within 20 working days, as stipulated by the Act.

    Yours faithfully,

    Paul Ponting

Deadline 12th July 2019

  • Question: 16th July 2019

    Dear Lancashire Constabulary

    I would like an internal review of this FOI.

    Lancashire Constabulary has confirmed in a Subject Access Request that Operation Malaya was created and therefore it does exist.    

    It was confirmed that the operation name was created for logistical reasons and therefore associated costs will, or should have been recorded against this operation name. 

    Operation Malaya was paid for with public funds and the public have a right to know.

    It will be recorded the associated costs and will, of course, be noted who authorised the operation. 

    The rationale questions would need to have been fulfilled and signed off by a senior officer, this information will be held.

    I believe that Lancashire police are intentionally withholding this information which is unlawful.

    Paul.

  • Response: 17th July 2019

    Dear Mr Ponting,

    Your request for an Internal Review has been booked on under the reference number 2627/19. You should receive a response from us in due course.

    Kind Regards,

     

    Compliance Team – Data Protection Office

    HQ – Legal Services

    Information Compliance and Disclosure Section

    Lancashire Constabulary Headquarters

     

    Tel: 01772 413203

    Email: FOI@lancashire.pnn.police.uk

    Personal Data Matters – Let’s Get it Right!

     

  • Question: 13th August 2019

    Dear Lancashire Constabulary

    Please can you provide an update of this internal review which was booked almost 4 weeks ago.

    Paul

  • Response: 22nd October 2019

    Dear Mr Ponting,

    Please accept our apologises for the delay, we will endeavour to deal with this as soon as possible.

    Kind Regards,

    Compliance Team – Data Protection Office

    HQ – Legal Services

    Information Compliance and Disclosure Section

    Lancashire Constabulary Headquarters

     

    Tel: 01772 412714

    Email: FOI@lancashire.pnn.police.uk

     

     

     

    Personal Data Matters – Let’s Get it Right!

foi-request-refused

DS Mark Burns misconduct Investigation

/ , / 0 Comments

Status: REFUSED – Internal review

  • Question: 2nd June 2019

    Dear Lancashire police

    I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information relating to Det Sgt Mark Burns, a Lancashire police officer, mentioned in the following news article.

    https://www.lep.co.uk/news/crime/investigation-in-preston-police-officer-s-sleazy-order-1-7243471

    An article on the Lancashire Evening Post alleges that Det Sgt Mark Burns was under investigation for purchasing a thong from a ‘young’ woman through a fetish website.  The allegation states that this thong purchased by Det Sgt Mark Burns was to be posted to him at work at a Lancashire police stations. 

    The allegations also suggest that Det Sgt Mark Burns then complimented the young woman’s figure and then asked her the make a ‘video’ for him. I suspect this may have been of a sexual or pornographic nature.

    Det Sgt Mark Burns was alleged to have said (relating to purchasing you womans underwear)  “I ask for them to be posted to where I work. The big thing is I work in a police station. Is that OK with you? I’ve had pairs of pants ­delivered here before.” suggesting this is not the only time he has done this.

    • What was the outcome of this investigation?
    • Was it uncovered what video DS Mark Burns requested the young female to make for him was? 
    • Was the video request of a sexual nature? 
    • Was the video request legal? 
    • Did the video request involve payment?
    • His comments suggest this is not a one off incident, how many other instances of this nature were discovered in the investigation?
    • What criminal investigations has DS Mark Burns been involved in? The emphasis being predominantly cases that involve victims that are ‘young woman’.  (I would suggest an age up to 25 would be accepted for my query definition of young woman)
    • Have Lancashire police force have considered whether Det Sgt Mark Burns was a risk to any victims he has had contact with in light of his clear fetish for underwear from young woman and other potential sexual requests from young woman.  If so, what was the determination? If not, why not?
    • I would like to know if there are any cases he has worked on that may raise questions about potential ethics and morals when dealing with vulnerable victims, especially young woman.
    • Is it true that in light of these allegations, DS Mark Burns was promoted from Police Constable to Detective Sergeant in 2017, less that 2 years after this incident?
    • Is it true that in light of this clear fetish for young woman, DS Mark Burns is now involved in Cybercrime investigations? 
    • Does his role involve any investigations of a sexual nature, especially of young woman?  If so, do you think this is appropriate?

    If it is not possible to provide the information requested due to the information exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section 12, please provide advice and assistance, under your Section 16 obligations, as to how I can refine my request to be included in the scope of the Act. In any case, if you can identify ways that my request could be refined please provide further advice and assistance to indicate this.

    I look forward to your response within 20 working days, as stipulated by the Act.

    Yours faithfully,

    Paul Ponting

Deadline 28th June 2019

  • Question: 2nd June 2019

    Dear Lancashire police.

    I would like this decision to be reviewed.

    I am first pointing out that there appears to be an intentional delay in responding in a ‘reasonable timeframe’. You have refused to provide the information requested yet used all available time to make this decision, in fact, you exceeded the statutory response time. I see this as intentionally to delay the request.

    You also refused to respond to any questions on the claimed exemption. You did not provide a rationale for any of the questions, just a vague refusal to supply data that is in the public interest.

    I disagree that the information is exempt under section 40 (2) Personal Information on the grounds that the incident referred to is already widely published in the local media. PC Mark Burns name and details of the incident have been published and further clarification of the investigation does not disclose any further details other that clarification of published facts. Even if one or two questions are exempt, you have chosen to refuse to respond to any FOI request based on this.

    I have re-submitted my questions which I think you will see related to a misconduct and criminal investigation. The facts of both are in the public interest and should not be withheld.

    If you believe one or more of the questions releases exempt personal information, then please provide a full rationale for that specific question. This does not exempt all questions from the Freedom of Information request. A failure to provide this information will be reported to the ICO.

    • What was the outcome of this investigation?

    • Was it uncovered what video DS Mark Burns requested the young female to make for him was?

    • Was the video request of a sexual nature?

    • Was the video request legal?

    • Did the video request involve payment?

    • His comments suggest this is not a one off incident, how many other instances of this nature were discovered in the investigation?

    • What criminal investigations has DS Mark Burns been involved in? The emphasis being predominantly cases that involve victims that are ‘young woman’. (I would suggest an age up to 25 would be accepted for my query definition of young woman)

    • Have Lancashire police force have considered whether Det Sgt Mark Burns was a risk to any victims he has had contact with in light of his clear fetish for underwear from young woman and other potential sexual requests from young woman. If so, what was the determination? If not, why not?

    • I would like to know if there are any cases he has worked on that may raise questions about potential ethics and morals when dealing with vulnerable victims, especially young woman.

    • Is it true that in light of these allegations, DS Mark Burns was promoted from Police Constable to Detective Sergeant in 2017, less that 2 years after this incident?

    • Is it true that in light of this clear fetish for young woman, DS Mark Burns is now involved in Cybercrime investigations?

    • Does his role involve any investigations of a sexual nature, especially of young woman? If so, do you think this is appropriate?

foi-request-waiting

Operation Malaya

/ , / 1 Comment

Status: Waiting for information…

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Lancashire Constabulary should normally have responded promptly and by 8 May 2019

  • Question: 5th April 2019

    Dear Lancashire Constabulary,I would like you to provide me with all information regarding Operation Malaya.This is a police task force operation that was discussed in an open court on 2rd April 2019 and therefore of public record. It was discussed by a man named George Vella who informed the court he was involved in the operation and privy to the details.If it is not possible to provide the information requested due to the information exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section 12, please provide advice and assistance, under your Section 16 obligations, as to how I can refine my request to be included in the scope of the Act. In any case, if you can identify ways that my request could be refined please provide further advice and assistance to indicate this.I look forward to your response within 20 working days, as stipulated by the Act.Yours faithfully,Paul Ponting

  • Question: 6th April 2019

    Dear Lancashire Constabulary,

    I am writing to further clarify my request:

    • Please can you tell me who authorised the operation.
    • Please can you tell me the number of officers involved in the operation.
    • Please can you tell me how long the operation has been running?
    • When did the operation start?
    • Is it now finished?
    • What was or is the investigation purpose?
    • Under what circumstances would members of the public be involved in such an operation.

    I look forward to your response 
    Yours faithfully,

    Paul Ponting

  • Question: 27th April 2019

    Dear Information assurance unit,

    It has been 20 working days and I have not had a response.

    The Police and Crime Commissioner, Clive Grunshaw has confirmed Operation Malaya does exist and was setup 13th June 2017. This may help.

    Please can you respond as soon as possible.

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Ponting

  • Response: 29th April 2019

    Dear Mr Ponting,

    Our response to your Freedom of Information Request regarding ‘Operation Malaya’ is due on the 8^th May 2019.

    Please be advised that the deadline date has been extended by two days due to Good Friday and Easter Monday falling within April.

    Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to get back in touch.

    Regards,
    Compliance Team – Data Protection Office
    HQ – Legal Services
    Information Compliance and Disclosure Section
    Lancashire Constabulary Headquarters
    Tel: 01772 413203

  • Question: 7th May 2019

    Dear FOI,

    Thank you for the clarification. I would like to point out that the deadline is the absolute latest date a response should take and should not be seen as a ‘target’ date for releasing the information or be used as any means to delay the release of the information. If you have the information now, as I suspect you do, then the information should be released now and not delayed intentionally until the deadline is reached.

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Ponting

Deadline 8th May 2019

  • Question: 9th May 2019

    Dear FOI,

    Please can you provide me with the information requested. Yesterday was the DEADLINE.

    Your response on the 29th April 2019 made it clear that you believed the information was DUE on the 8th May 2019 (yesterday) when in fact, it was due NO LATER than the 8th May 2019. This was a deadline, not a target!

    By law, you should normally have responded promptly and by 8 May 2019 at the latest

    Please can you provide me with the information I requested as soon as possible.

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Ponting

  • Question: 10th May 2019

    Dear FOI,

    Please can you provide me with the information requested. The deadline was the 8th May.

    Your response on the 29th April 2019 made it clear that you believed the information was DUE on the 8th May 2019 when in fact, it was due NO LATER than the 8th May 2019. This was a deadline, not a target!

    By law, you should normally have responded promptly and by 8 May 2019 at the latest. Please can you provide me with the information I requested.

    I have already sent you a reminder of this delay on the 9th May to which you have not responded.

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Ponting

  • Question: 13th May 2019

    Dear FOI,

    Please can you provide me with the information requested. The deadline was the 8th May.

    Your response on the 29th April 2019 made it clear that you believed the information was DUE on the 8th May 2019 when in fact, it was due NO LATER than the 8th May 2019. This was a deadline, not a target!

    By law, you should normally have responded promptly and by 8 May 2019 at the latest. Please can you provide me with the information I requested.

    I have already sent you reminders on the following dates which you seem to be ignoring: 
    9th May 
    10th May

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Ponting

  • Response: 14th May 2019

    Dear Mr Ponting,

    Please accept our sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your Freedom of Information request.

    I am sorry if this has caused you any inconvenience.

    Please be assured that we are aware of your request and shall ensure that we provide you with a response as soon as possible.

    If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

    Regards,

    Compliance Team – Data Protection Office

    HQ – Legal Services

    Information Compliance and Disclosure Section

    Lancashire Constabulary Headquarters

    Tel: 01772 413203

    Personal Data Matters – Let’s Get it Right!

    show quoted sections

  • Question: 14th May 2019

    Dear FOI,

    Thank you for your email.

    As you are aware, the law states that Freedom of Information requests should be replied to promptly and in any case, the law states that you must respond within 20 working days. This is 4 days late so far.

    You replied to me on the 29th April after I promoted you for a reply. You told me that the deadline was ‘extended’ due to bank holidays and that my FOI request was ‘due’ on the 8th May 2019.

    I have made you aware that the deadline is that (a deadline, not a target). You made no reference to any known delay of this FOI request on the 29th of April when you clearly stated the due date was the 8th May 2019, therefore, I am asking for the information I requested immediately.

    If you do not have it, why not? 
    Please tell me what is causing the delay as the information should be readily available. 
    The task force has been confirmed to exist already by the Crime Commissioner.

    I understand the FOI poses a difficult situation for the constabulary to answer, but legally, you must respond and provide the information even though it may assist me with a complaint or claim against the constabulary.

    Yours sincerely, 
    Paul Ponting

  • Question: 15th May 2019

    Dear FOI,

    Please can you provide me with the information requested. The deadline was the 8th May.

    Your response on the 29th April 2019 made it clear that you believed the information was DUE on the 8th May 2019 when in fact, it was due NO LATER than the 8th May 2019. This was a deadline, not a target!

    By law, you should normally have responded promptly and by 8 May 2019 at the latest. Please can you provide me with the information I requested.

    I have already sent you reminders on the following dates which you seem to be ignoring: 
    9th May 
    10th May 
    13th May 
    14th May

    You did take the time to send me a message on the 14th telling me there was a delay, but my response back on the same day has been ignored. I have asked for the reason for the delay which you have simply ignored and still failed to provide the requested information.

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Ponting

  • Question: 17th May 2019

    Dear FOI,

    Please can you provide me with the information requested. The deadline was the 8th May.

    Your response on the 29th April 2019 made it clear that you believed the information was DUE on the 8th May 2019 when in fact, it was due NO LATER than the 8th May 2019. This was a deadline, not a target!

    By law, you should normally have responded promptly and by 8 May 2019 at the latest. Please can you provide me with the information I requested.

    I have already sent you reminders on the following dates which you seem to be ignoring:

    9th May
    10th May
    13th May
    14th May
    15th May

    You did take the time to send me a message on the 14th telling me there was a delay, but my response back on the same day has been ignored. I have asked for the reason for the delay which you have simply ignored and still failed to provide the requested information.

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Ponting

  • Response: 20th May 2019

    Data Protection Office
    Police Headquarters, Saunders Lane, Hutton, Preston PR4 5SB
    Tel: 01772 41332 / 412144
    Email: FOI@lancashire.pnn.police.uk

    Mr Paul Ponting
    Sent via email to:foirequests@foi-request.com

    Date: 20 May 2019

    Dear Mr Ponting
    FREEDOM OF INFORMATION APPLICATION REFERENCE NO: DPO/FOI/001305/19
    Thank you for your request for information received by Lancashire Constabulary on 05/04/2019.

    Your request has now been considered and the Constabulary’s response is provided below.

    Lancashire Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any information in relation to your request by virtue of the listed exemptions:

    • Section 30(3) Investigations
    • Section 40(5) Personal Data

    Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption and consideration of the public interest must be given as to whether neither confirming nor denying the information exists is the appropriate response.

    Section 40 is an absolute class based exemption therefore neither the public interest test nor evidence of harm in disclosure needs to be outlined.

    This exemption is engaged as it satisfies the following two conditions: –

    1. To confirm whether or not the information is held would reveal the personal data of a data subject as defined by Article 4 (1) of GDPR and Part 1 Section (3)(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018.

    2. That to confirm whether or not the information is held would contravene one of the data protection principles, namely the first one, which states that personal data shall be processed lawfully and fairly (and in a transparent manner).

    Section 40 is an absolute class based exemption therefore neither the public interest test nor evidence of harm in disclosure needs to be outlined.

    I can advise however that to confirm or deny whether we hold any of the requested information would in itself reveal the personal data of the subject. It is important to note that disclosures under the FOIA are considered as disclosures “to the world” and as such, to confirm or deny whether or not any information is held would be unfair to the data subject and therefore breach the first data protection principle, namely that ‘Personal data shall be processed lawfully and fairly’.

    Public Interest Considerations

    Factors favouring confirmation or denial for Section 30

    Confirming or denying whether information exists relevant to this request would lead to a better informed general public by identifying that Lancashire Constabulary robustly investigate all allegations. This fact alone may encourage individuals to provide intelligence in order to assist with investigations and promote public trust in providing transparency and demonstrating openness and accountability into where the police focus their investigations.

    Factors against confirmation or denial for Section 30

    Modern-day Policing is intelligence led and by confirming or denying that any information relevant to this request exists could suggest Lancashire Constabulary take their responsibility to appropriately handle and manage intelligence supplied to them flippantly. It must be remembered that any information disclosed under the Freedom of information Act is considered as a disclosure ‘to the world’.

    To confirm or deny that information is held in relation to investigations which may or may not have taken place or be taking place would undermine the investigative process and therefore is not in the public interest.

    Balancing Test

    The points above highlight the merits of confirming, or denying, whether any information pertinent to this request exists. The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. As part of that policing purpose, various operations may or may not be on-going. The Police Service will never divulge whether or not information pertinent to this request does or does not exist, if to do so would place the safety of an individual(s) at risk, compromise an investigation or undermine the policing purpose in the effective delivery of operational law enforcement.

    Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and investigations, providing reassurance that the Police Service is appropriately and effectively acting on the information provided by the public for investigations, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the health and safety of individuals. As much as there is a public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced it will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.

    Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test for neither confirming, nor denying that information is held is appropriate.

    No inference can be taken from this refusal that information does or does not exist.

    Therefore, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts as a Refusal Notice under section 17 (1) of the legislation.

    As per our obligation to provide advice and assistance we can advise that Operation Malaya is an operational name created for logistical reasons to accurately reflect duties being undertaken by certain staff. Due to the number and complexity of the allegations made, in order to provide continuity and a more efficient, streamlined service, a small team of dedicated officers were removed from their normal duties and assigned to work on these linked reports. For operational resourcing reasons they were required to be shown as allocated to a particular investigation, hence the creation of the operation name. The operation started in June 2017 and the officers concerned returned to their normal duties in September 2017.

    We sincerely apologise for the delay in providing you with a response to this request.
    If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request and wish to make a complaint or request an internal review of our decision, you should write to the Information Assurance Manager, Information Compliance and Disclosure Section, Police Headquarters, Saunders Lane, Hutton, Preston PR4 5SB or alternatively send an email to FOI@lancashire.pnn.police.uk. Details of the Constabulary’s Freedom of Information Complaint Procedures can be found attached to this email.
    If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the Information Commissioner’s Office cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by Lancashire Constabulary. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
    Yours sincerely

    Compliance Team

    Data Protection Office

  • Question: 20th May 2019

    Dear FOI

    I am asking for this to be sent for internal review on the basis that Operation Malaya has been identified in the public domain and discussed in a public court. 

    Therefore is already public knowledge and in the public interest.  No personal identifiable information is required.

    Please can you tell me who authorised the operation.  – Officers name is ok to disclose.
    Please can you tell me the number of officers involved in the operation. – Does not disclose personal data.
    Please can you tell me how long the operation has been running?  – Does not disclose personal data.
    When did the operation start?    – Does not disclose personal data.
    Is it now finished?    – Does not disclose personal data.
    What was or is the investigation purpose?   – Does not disclose personal data, any names can be redacted.
    Under what circumstances would members of the public be involved in such an operation.   – Does not disclose personal data.

    I reiterate, this is in the public interest.  It has been openly discussed in public and in a public court room.

    Please can you respond with the requested information as soon as possible.

    Paul

  • Response: 21st May 2019

    Dear Mr Ponting,

    Your request for an Internal Review has been booked on under the reference number 1844/19. You should receive a response from us in due course.

    Regards,

    Data Protection Office

    Lancashire Constabulary Headquarters

    Tel: 01772 413203

    Email: FOI@lancashire.pnn.police.uk

foi-request-ignored

Registered Police Informants

/ , , / 0 Comments

Status: IGNORED..!

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Lancashire Constabulary should normally have responded promptly and by 14th February 2019

  • Question: 16th January 2019

    Dear Lancashire Constabulary,

     

    I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information:

    • The number of active Lancashire Police Informants on the records over the last 5 years (by year)
    • How much money has been paid to Informants over the last 5 years.(by year)
    • Where does this money come from.
    • Who authorises how much money is given to any specific Informant.
    • What are the guidelines for providing protection to informants or reducing sentences.

    If it is not possible to provide the information requested due to the information exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section 12, please provide advice and assistance, under your Section 16 obligations, as to how I can refine my request to be included in the scope of the Act. In any case, if you can identify ways that my request could be refined please provide further advice and assistance to indicate this.

     

    I look forward to your response within 20 working days, as stipulated by the Act.

     

    If you have any queries please don’t hesitate to contact me via email and I will be happy to clarify what I am asking for.

     

    Yours faithfully,

    Paul Ponting

  • Question: 16th January 2019

    Dear Lancashire Constabulary,

    I would like to point out that your replies are public and I do not authorise the publication of any of my personal data, which you have done in a number of previous freedom of information requests which have been reported to the ICO.

    Yours faithfully,

    Paul Ponting

  • Response: 13th February 2019

    Dear Mr Ponting,

    Thank you for your email.

    Please provide an email address / address for any future correspondence of this nature.

    Regards,

    Disclosure Tteam

Deadline 14th February 2019

  • Question: 24th February 2019

    Dear Information assurance unit,

    Please respond to my FOI address publically. No private data is requested nor required.

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Ponting

  • Response: 6th March 2019

    Dear Mr Ponting,

    Further to your recent Freedom of Information Request Ref: 238/19, please be advised that a substantive response has been sent to your alternative email address.

    Regards,

    Compliance Team – Data Protection Office

    HQ – Legal Services

    Information Compliance and Disclosure Section

    Lancashire Constabulary Headquarters

    Tel: 01772 413203

  • Question: 6th March 2019

    Dear FOI,

    I have provided a full detailed appeal to the ICO about your repeated refusal to supply selective data. I have also explained to the ICO how you have repeatedly provided only selected information in an attempt to justify your refusal.

    You have made claims of ‘my complaints’ I have made in the past but failed to state that the majority of my complaints against Lancashire police relate to circumstances that have been settled by Lancashire police for a substantial sum of money in an out of court settlement. This was well documented in the media, such as ITV for example. https://www.itv.com/news/granada/topic/paul-ponting/

    The Chief constable apologised for the despicable treatment against me from Lancashire police, yet you still infer that my complaints are in some way malicious in light of the actual facts!

    I find it very malicious how you used public money to ‘pay me off’ after the malicious prosecution against me by Lancashire police and then try to use the related complaints about this settled action to try to block access to information I have requested by FOI.

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Ponting

  • Question: 7th March 2019

    Dear Lancashire Constabulary,

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

    I am writing to request an internal review of Lancashire Constabulary’s handling of my FOI request ‘Registered Police Informants’.

    I have reported this refusal to the ICO who have logged it but they have asked me to first request an internal review.

    You have refused to provide this information stating that it is vexatious. The ICO have previously advised me that

    “It may also be helpful to explain that, section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) can only be applied to the request itself, not the individual who submitted it.”

    As you have provided me with numerous responses to other FOI requests, it would go to say that you have refused this FOI request because it is from me, and that the FOI request itself is not vexatious. This would mean the request, made by anyone else should also be deemed vexatious.

    For you to refuse this FOI, you must show that any other person making the same request would be refused on the same grounds. This I put you to strict proof.

    You make reference to another person who has made the same FOI request and infer that this person is linked to me. This strengthens that it is being refused against the rules outlined above, i.e, based on the FOI originating from an individual and not that the FOI itself is vexatious.

    I would say that this shows Lancashire police are determined to do anything to block ME access to this information that would be provided to any other person.

    I have also noted that you incorrectly and intentionally make reference to a number of previous complaints I have made about Lancashire police. You are inferring this contributes to your allegation that my FOI is vexatious.

    This is false and a manipulation of the true facts. The complaints referred to relate to the malicious prosecution against me by Lancashire police. This Malicious prosecution has been accepted and settled by Lancashire Police OUT OF COURT and for a significant sum of money. I also received a letter of apology from the Chief Constable for the treatment against me by Lancashire officers.

    It is clear from the settlement that Lancashire police accept that the complaints have merit yet you infer that they are vexatious. and support your refusal.

    From the above, the acceptance that Lancashire police maliciously prosecuted me and that I then made numerous complaints against Lancashire police would show, on balance, that it is Lancashire police that are in fact vexatious. I put you to strict proof of your allegation.

    Your refusal to provide the information made absolutely NO reference to the settlement which is, on balance, intentionally hiding the facts. Facts that you are fully aware of.

    Finally, you make reference to some articles written. While you may not like articles written in relation to FOI requests, this is normal and main stream media do it all the time, so why would it be different for me or anyone else?

    If you recall, part of the malicious prosecution against me related to charges you brought against me for speaking openly about a confirmed police informant (PT). The settlement for the Malicious prosecution goes some way to show that Lancashire police prosecuted me (maliciously) for speaking openly about how this police informant was allowed to continue attacking me under the protection of Lancashire police. Only facts were presented. This is not a crime and was proven in Court where I was not only acquitted but Lancashire police were criticised by the court.

    Evidence was presented from the Police Informant himself from his own industrial tribunal confirming he was a police informant. A recorded conversation with a police officer also confirming the individual was a police informant.

    I am within my rights to request information under FOI laws and write articles relating to my past and treatment. This may not be liked by some but this is a protected right under freedom of speech. You cannot block access to FOI request as a means to control Freedom of Speech which I have quoted below for your convenience.

    “Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference. This includes the right to express your views aloud (for example through public protest and demonstrations) or through:

    published articles, books or leaflets 
    television or radio broadcasting 
    works of art 
    the internet and social media”

    I am requesting the decision to be overturned as soon a possible otherwise this will be passed to the ICO.

    A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://foi-request.com/registered-police-informants/

    Yours faithfully,

    Paul Ponting

  • Response: 7th March 2019

    Good Morning,

    Your request for an Internal Review has been booked on under the reference number 901/19. You should receive a response from us in due course.

    Regards,

    Data Protection Office

    Lancashire Constabulary Headquarters

    Tel: 01772 413203

  • Question: 27th April 2019

    Dear FOI,

    There has been a significant delay and I am asking for a response to the internal review request.

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Ponting

  • Question: 17th May 2019

    Dear FOI

    On the 7th March 2019, you informed me that an Internal Review has been booked under the reference number 901/19.

    It is now the 17th May 2019 and I have not had any response from you at all.

    Please can you respond as this delay is against the law.

    Regards,

    Paul Ponting

foi-request-ignored

Police disposal of public assets and valuation of such assets

/ , , / 0 Comments

Status: IGNORED..!

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Lancashire Constabulary should normally have responded promptly and by 2nd January 2019

  • Question: 2nd December 2018

    Dear Lancashire Constabulary,

    I refer to a FOI made the the PCC, Clive Grunshaw. 
    https://foi-request.com/use-of-public-money-for-donations

    I would like you to provide me with the regulations on how the Chief Constable or PCC can use PUBLIC assets for donations to charities, especially charities with potential for conflicts of interest.

    I refer to the following publication where Clive Grunshaw (or Lancashire police as Clive says) donated a police motorcycle of significant value to North West Blood Bikes. 
    https://nwbb-lancs.org/blog/post.php?s=2…

    I refer to potential conflicts of interest, as the charity is chaired by an ex Lancashire police officer and current magistrate. At the time believed to be a freemason.

    This conflict of interest is identified clearly in that the chair is an ex police officer so this begs the question,

    • Why this charity?
    • What was the process for deciding which charity?
    • What other charities were considered?

    The second conflict of interest is that the chairman is a magistrate and this could invoke significant BIAS in any criminal convictions by the magistrate.

    • Are police allowed to ‘donate’ assets to members of the judiciary?
    • What safeguards are in place to ensure no conflict exists?
    • Who overlooks potential conflicts and abuse of public assets?

    I also ask, why the motorcycle was valued at £1,500? even at today’s market, it could fetch as much as £4,000. The £1,500 valuation was made back in 2013 and it is estimated the motorcycle was worth closer to £7,000 at this time so a deficit of over £5,000 of public assets to a police run charity.

    • Who overlooks valuations to ensure they are not abused?
    • What process was used to ensure this valuation was correct?
    • Please provide bills of sale for this valuation/sale/donation?

    While this may be a worthwhile charity, my request is, who decides which charity is in receipt of disposals of such significant value?

    Suspicions will obviously be raised at the selection of charity so please detail why this charity was selected in the knowledge an ex-police officer/magistrate was the chair.

    I have suspicious that this may in fact be a fraudulent or illegal devaluing of public assets, followed by a ‘biased’ selection of charity. This was identified by the PCC as a donation by himself. This was the same year he was investigate for expenses fraud and maybe CPS should be notified?

    If it is not possible to provide the information requested due to the information exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section 12, please provide advice and assistance, under your Section 16 obligations, as to how I can refine my request to be included in the scope of the Act. In any case, if you can identify ways that my request could be refined please provide further advice and assistance to indicate this.

    I look forward to your response within 20 working days, as stipulated by the Act.

    Yours faithfully,

    Paul Ponting

Deadline 2nd January 2019

  • Question: 12th January 2019

    Dear Information assurance unit,

    The Freedom of Information Act says:

    A public authority must comply with section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt.

    You have not replied, please can you do so as soon as possible.

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Ponting

  • Response: 30th January 2019

    Dear Mr Ponting
    FREEDOM OF INFORMATION APPLICATION REFERENCE NO: DPO/FOI/004298/18

    Thank you for your request for information received by Lancashire Constabulary on 02/12/2018.

    I refer to your request as above and in accordance with Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information
    Act (FOIA) 2000 I can confirm some information is held relevant to your request. Under delegated powers the Head of Business Support was authorised to dispose of police equipment up to the value of £2000 by whatever means was believed to be most appropriate. An extract from the relevant section of the Delegated authority is set out below.

    LOST DAMAGED OBSOLETE AND SURPLUS ITEMS OF FURNITURE EQUIPMENT STOCKS AND STORES

    To write off furniture, equipment, stocks and stores found to be deficient, damaged or obsolete
    i)
    Up to a value of £2,000 per individual item delegated to Divisional Commander/Head of Business Support
    To dispose of any obsolete items of furniture, equipment stocks and stores as follows If the value of goods to be disposed of is estimated to be in excess of £2,000 the items should be disposed of publicly, by tender or auction as appropriate. Where the value of goods is below £2,000 disposal should be by whatever method is considered to be the most appropriate and financially advantageous to the PCC delegated to Divisional Commander/Head of Business Support.

    Within your request you have also asked a number of questions. These are not valid requests for information held under the FOIA.

    However, in accordance with our duty to assist I can advise that an approach was made by a representative of the Charity to the Director of Resources. The matter was referred to the Head of Business Services, who had delegated powers, as detailed above and considered the offer from the Charity, as a corporate entity, following a valuation of the motorcycle by the Business Services Fleet Manager.

    A copy of the email authorising approval to the donation is attached.

    Please accept our apologies for the delay in processing your request.

    If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request and wish to make a complaint or request an internal review of our decision, you should write to the Information Assurance Manager, Information Compliance and Disclosure Section, Police Headquarters, Saunders Lane, Hutton, Preston PR4 5SB or alternatively send an email

    Details of
    the Constabulary’s Freedom of Information Complaint Procedures can be found attached to this
    email.  If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information
    Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the Information Commissioner’s Office cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by Lancashire Constabulary.

    The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe
    House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

    Yours sincerely
    Compliance Team
    Data Protection Office

  • Question: 30th January 2019

    Thank you for the reply.

    I note that you have confirmed that items valued at less that £2,000 can be disposed off. I am nut sure vehicles are covered by this category, hover, assuming they are, my query was quite specific and I remind you of it.

    “I also ask, why the motorcycle was valued at £1,500? even at today’s market, it could fetch as much as £4,000. The £1,500 valuation was made back in 2013 and it is estimated the motorcycle was worth closer to £7,000 at this time so a deficit of over £5,000 of public assets to a police run charity.“

    I am aware the motorcycle was valued at £1,500. It has therefore ‘more likely than not’ been intentionally valued at £1,500 to keep it below this £2,000 threshold so that it can be disposed of fraudulently.

    I have done some research and have estimated the motorcycle was in fact worth closer to £7,000..!

    Now this is an estimate, but is it wildly different to the £1,500 as estimated by the ‘fleet manager’ who I would believe would have been instructed this low valuation. I doubt any public servant in the position of a ‘fleet manager’ would make such a big mistake.

    What I would like clarifying is, the rationale for the valuation of £1,500 made back in 2013 which is less than what the bike would actually be worth now.

    Notwithstanding the above valuations, there is NO WAY the bike was worth less than £2,000 in 2013. This is ludicrous and a full investigation should be triggered by this FOI request.

    My FOI is for information that appears to relate to an intentional fraudulent transaction using public funds so I am asking for FULL disclosure.

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Ponting

  • Question: 17th May 2019

    Dear FOI

    I sent a question on the 30th January, almost 4 months ago.  You have not replied.

    As you can see, I am trying to ascertain how a police motorcycle which is owned by tax payers, was devalued (fraudulently) to allow it to be disposed of, ironically, to an ex-Lancashire police officer and serving magistrate Paul Brooks.

    You have simply failed to respond. 

    This does look like you wont reply because you are aware it was a fraudulent dealing and this does not exempt you from responding.  I  await your response to this and my previous email.

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Ponting