Met Police - learning results of submissions

Thanks for the update. I've wondered about where this would end up.

When you say most of your reports are "prosecution ongoing" do you mean you get a response to most of yours? I've rarely received any acknowledgement of mine. But I'll be getting the laptop out to look at that link in a few hours.

Thanks again for the link to the spread sheet. It is very cumbersome to filter by date and then try and find/guess the location you were riding! Would it have killed them to include their own reference number they provide after a submission?!

It should still be useful to see what offences are taken forward by the Met though. And it may help with being aware of what videos have been successful in the past.

Edit: did you find out what happened with the driver of the Zipcar?

wtjs wrote:

...

This exemption is engaged therefore 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.
...

The vehicle registration plate is not personal data of the subject since only DVLA can reference that to a Registered Keeper for Police purposes, thus failing the 'public' test.

So I concur that they are attempting to BS you with this response...

But the Information Commissioner (who is really the Information Restriction Commissioner, see below for his Decision Notice) agreed with Lancashire Constabulary, and will do again when the police refuse my '2 years later' repeat request!

IC confirmation bias at it's finest, and not the facts of the matter IMHO.

Turns out they prefer video evidence to prove beyond doubt a car is parked on zig zag lines; a still won't do
They 'prefer' what you haven't got! When you give them that they simply don't respond.

We'll see. Positive action taken on every report I've made so far, but my guess is it's just warning letters so far for the zig zag line offence.

Positive action taken on every report I've made so far...

Your cynicism may be well founded in Lancashire, but since I have been to court on one of my reports, I do actually believe them.

Bungle_52 below says: Gloucestershire will now only send an advisory letter for a close pass no matter how close. That shows how much progress is being made on close-passing: none. Some force, may have been Gloucestershire, recently demanded that cyclist have to demonstrate that they have been 'inconvenienced' by a close pass, and Essex (I think) came up with the idea years ago that there had to be evidence that the cyclist had braked or changed course before they would take close-passing seriously. Lancashire, as far as it's possible to tell, has never taken anybody to court over close passing a cyclist, and it's doubtful if Gloucestershire has. WU59 UMH is outside the Eagle and Child pub in Garstang right now, with no VED for over 7 years and previously, before his business insurance must have forced him to get one, had no MOT for 6 years and a badly failed MOT for 6 months. Police Officers and their attitudes are the problem badly affecting cycling safety on UK roads, and it's not only Lancashire and Scotland

Yep! True to form. Surely, they can't be dim enough to sit on it for as long as possible and then claim 'something...something..GDPR..etc'? Can they?

Disappointing to hear that.

If I can ask, what was the format of your FOI request? Was it just a list of reference numbers you provided and you asked for the outcomes for each? How many cases did you ask for? Thanks!

Ah right, that would be an interesting case to find the result of.

And don't mind the tardy reply or lack of a reply! Its always a bit of guesswork on whether any comment will get a response or whether I'll even remember what I've written where!

FOI request submitted

There is an almost infinite number of dodges which enable public authorities to refuse FoI requests, and they could do it here under 'intention to publish the information' followed by continuing 'technical difficulties' to prevent you knowing for as long as possible how little they did when they 'promised to take action but won't tell you what it is'. However, if they do refuse to tell you about a few specific cases you will know there's a lot of weaselling ahead. They're relying on many people not being organised enough to follow up on this 'action' or being satisfied that 'words of advice' and 'advice letter' really constitute a deterrent. They don't- and still less do all those NIPs the police couldn't be bothered to follow up themselves 'because vehicle not traceable' or because the offender refuses to admit the offence or 'has no recollection of it'.

FOI request submitted
We must now be very close to 4 weeks from your FoI request Rendel- at this time of year without public holidays that's all the time they're allowed to reply. The police have tried it on with me a couple of times and haven't replied within the specified time, claiming 'pressure of work'. Don't let them get away with it. Say you sent it in on a Wednesday, then be ready to send in your complaint to the Information Commissioner website at 8 am on the Thursday 4 weeks later, if they haven't replied by then. ICO has to issue a decision against them for failure to reply, and gets them off on the wrong foot. This doesn't matter if they then provide the information you want, but if they refuse you get straight back in with another complaint challenging their refusal, mentioning their failure to reply in the specified time. That teaches them a lesson!

Surely, they can't be dim enough to sit on it for as long as possible and then claim 'something...something..GDPR..etc'? Can they?

So, the conclusion is that they were planning for sometime in December a facility that provided the outcome of any reported offence to the person who reported it and was therefore in possession of the report reference, but that proposal has now disappeared into the long grass 'the database has been sent back to development, therefore we are waiting for an update from IT' and you ask for that very information and they're making it difficult ?!

If you had asked them for the information, then they were obliged to supply it under the terms on the Freedom of Information Act

A little pedantic point on this: except they're not. There are numerous tricks to evade the responsibility to provide the information requested, and the agent who helps them to do that is, unfortunately, the Information Commissioner. See my post below by the big picture of the white coach. There are few cyclists, but many police officers and drivers, who would deny that I was the victim of the offence - and I still await official confirmation of what the police did about it (which, obviously, was nothing)