Gallwch adael y wefan hon yn gyflym drwy wasgu’r fysell Escape Allanfa Gyflym
Rydym yn defnyddio rhai cwcis hanfodol i wneud i’n gwefan weithio. Hoffem osod cwcis ychwanegol fel y gallwn gofio eich dewisiadau a deall sut rydych yn defnyddio ein gwefan.
Gallwch reoli eich dewisiadau a gosodiadau cwcis unrhyw bryd drwy glicio ar “Addasu cwcis” isod. I gael rhagor o wybodaeth am sut rydym yn defnyddio cwcis, gweler ein Hysbysiad cwcis.
Mae eich dewisiadau cwcis wedi’u cadw. Gallwch ddiweddaru eich gosodiadau cwcis unrhyw bryd ar y dudalen cwcis.
Mae eich dewisiadau cwcis wedi’u cadw. Gallwch ddiweddaru eich gosodiadau cwcis unrhyw bryd ar y dudalen cwcis.
Mae’n ddrwg gennym, roedd problem dechnegol. Rhowch gynnig arall arni.
Diolch am roi cynnig ar fersiwn 'beta' ein gwefan newydd. Mae'n waith ar y gweill, byddwn yn ychwanegu gwasanaethau newydd dros yr wythnosau nesaf, felly cymerwch gip a gadewch i ni wybod beth yw eich barn chi.
FOI Reference: 777/2024
Request:
Thank you for your response to my FOI Reference: 634/2024.
You said the information is not held in an easily retrievable format. However some forces have been able to perform keyword searches.
I understand there are shortcomings with this approach -- it can only search summaries, it may not include all relevant reports, etc.
However I would be very grateful if you could perform a search for the keywords "certificate of sponsorship" and "sponsorship".
---------------------------------------
Response
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.
I can confirm that the cost of determining whether any information relative to this request is or isn’t held is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond therefore we are withholding the whole of the requested information since we consider that the Section 12 (2) exemption the Cost of Compliance exceeds the Appropriate Limit applies to it.
Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Dyfed Powys Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which: (a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption in question and (c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies. The following exemption has been applied to the whole of the information you have requested:
Section 12(2) – The cost of compliance exceeds the Appropriate Limit
Section 12(2) states: “…Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to comply with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying with that paragraph alone would exceed the appropriate limit.”
A keyword search of the words "certificate of sponsorship" and "sponsorship” was conducted for the previously requested period. A manual interrogation would still be required to establish if there were any reports of fraud/theft involving certificates of sponsorship since the beginning of this year.
The cost of determining what information is held, if any, relevant to your request is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond i.e. the cost of locating and retrieving the information exceeds the “appropriate level” as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004. It is estimated that it would exceed 18 hours (i.e. minimum of 615 hours) to comply with your request. The regulations can be located @ www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244
The Freedom of Information Unit has been advised that the information requested in relation to the whole request is not held in an easily retrievable format and would exceed the appropriate time limit, i.e. 18 hours, to retrieve. This is due to the fact that the incidents would need to be individually interrogated on the system.
It has been estimated that to individually interrogate each incident would take approximately 10 minutes per record. It has been established that there are a total of 3695 incidents that would require interrogation. The relevant time estimate is detailed below:
01.01.2024 – 26.06.2024: 3695 records x 10 minutes per record = 615.83 hours
Therefore, total time estimate to complete the request = 615.83 hours.
In accordance therefore with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts as a Refusal Notice for the Whole of this request under Section 17(5) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is relying on a claim that section 12 or section 14 applies must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that fact.
You may wish to refine and resubmit your request so that it reduces the time shown above to fall within the 18 hours, should you require any further advice in relation to this matter please don’t hesitate to contact the Freedom of Information Unit. Please also be advised that should the request be refined, it does not remove the public authorities right to cite exemptions if relevant.
Although excess cost removes the forces obligations under the Freedom of Information Act to provide any further information, as a gesture of goodwill, I have provided information, relative to question 2 - 10 of your request 634/2024, which has been easily retrievable and outlined below. 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.
Request Q2
If so, have they been referred on to
Action Fraud?
Response Q2
Nil
Request Q3
How many of these cases have been referred back to you by Action Fraud since the beginning of the year for further investigation? How many have you decided to take on for further
investigation?
Response Q3
Nil
Request Q4
In cases where your force has decided
not to undertake further investigation, what was the reasoning behind this?
Response Q4
N/A
Request Q5
Is your force actively investigating
any cases of fraud/theft involving certificates of sponsorship? If so, how many
Response Q5
No
Request Q6
What stage are those investigations at?
Response Q6
N/A
Request Q7
Has your force concluded any investigations in cases of fraud/theft involving certificates of sponsorship?
If so, how many, and did they result in any arrests or charges brought?
Response Q7
No
Request Q8
In cases where charges have been brought, what stage are these cases now at? Have any yet proceeded to court?
Response Q8
N/A
Request Q9
Can you share the names of any people who have been charged?
Response Q9
N/A
Request Q10
Does your force have a strategy in place to systematically handle cases involving certificate of sponsorship fraud? If so, what is this strategy?
Response Q10
No
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 28/08/2024)