29 March 2016 – 634.2015-16 – Freedom of information requests – PCC engagements for Thursday 8 October 2015 and correspondence relating to PCP meeting

Request

Please provide the following information, by way of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000

1. Details of all Mrs Mulligan’s PCC engagements for Thursday 8th October, 2015
2. Copies of all emails, correspondence, telephone notes, memos between the PCC’s staff (or herself); and details of all communications between the PCC’s staff (or herself) and the PCP Secretariat and/or any Members of the Panel; and details of all communications between the PCC’s staff (or herself) and the CEO (or any of the CEO’s staff) which concern the meeting of the Police and Crime Scrutiny Panel meeting which took place today.

Response

Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were carried out within the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC).

Decision

I am not obliged to provide you with a response to your request pursuant to Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). Please note that when one part of your request falls under Section 12, we are not obliged to review the rest of the questions and the whole request is therefore exempt.
Section 12(1) applies to your request as the cost of complying with your request is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond i.e. the cost of identifying and retrieving any relevant information exceeds the ‘appropriate level’ as stated in the Freedom of Information (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.

Due to the nature of our recording systems the information requested, is not in an easily retrievable format. In order to retrieve all emails, correspondence, telephone notes and memos in relation to the Police and Crime Scrutiny Panel held on 8 October 2015, it would be necessary to manually read through all such records held in the OPCC from the 6 month period leading up to the meeting to see if there was reference to the Panel. This would far exceed the cost threshold allowed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Pursuant to Section 17(5) of the Freedom of Information Act this letter acts as a Refusal Notice.
Pursuant to Section 16 of the Act I am required to offer you advice and assistance with regarding to refining your request to within the ‘appropriate limit’ (time/cost limit). However, due to the reasons above, I am unable to suggest any relevant ideas.

Please note that systems used for recording information are not generic, nor are the procedures used locally in capturing the data. It should be noted therefore that this force’s response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other responses you may receive.

Although excess cost removes the force’s obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, as a gesture of goodwill, I have supplied information, relative to your request, retrieved or available before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded. I trust this is helpful, but it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of your request.

1. Details of all Mrs Mulligan’s PCC engagements for Thursday 8th October, 2015

On 8 October 2015, the Police and Crime Commissioner had the following engagements:

• An interview with Farmers UK Magazine
• A 95 Alive (Road Safety Partnership) Steering Group meeting

In researching your request, I understand that you have been in correspondence with the Office and Police and Crime Commissioner and the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel, with regard to the Panel meeting on 8th October. I understand you received the Chairman’s statement as follows:

“The North Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel takes its role, to both scrutinise and support the PCC in the execution of her responsibilities, very seriously. During the three years since Mrs Mulligan assumed office, the Panel has met 15 times, in public, to hold her to account. Mrs Mulligan has attended every panel meeting but one, that of the 8 October, when her attendance was not required.”