Sancus Solutions 10/2024
FOI Reference: 10/2024
Request:
I'm writing as I would like to request a copy of all invoices between your force and Sancus Solutions and related companies.
Here is a link to the Sanctus Solutions website so that you can easily identify the correct company:
To make this request very clear, I would like a copy of all of the invoices, contracts and purchase orders that have been submitted to the police force by the following companies and other companies or entities that are related and associated to and/or controlled by an individual named Anthony Stephen John Hester.
The following are examples of entities which I have identified which are registered in the UK and are linked to Sancus Solutions Ltd, but operate under different company names and registration numbers:
SANCUS SOLUTIONS LIMITED (06993496)
THE SANCUS PARTNERSHIP LTD (08267418)
HESTER MARKETING LTD (07480053)
SANCUS OPERATIONS LTD (13733859)
DDRS NORTH WEST LTD (09978985)
I would like to request all relevant invoices from 1 January 2015 until present day.
Response:
I am writing to inform you that pursuant to the provision of Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) I have decided to refuse your request as it has been deemed to be a ‘Vexatious Request.’
Section 14(1) – Vexatious requests of the Act provides:
Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.
I have taken cognisance of the Information Commissioners guidance on Vexatious requests which can be found at:
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf
First and foremost when considering whether to make a request for information ‘Vexatious’ consideration has been given to the ICO Guidance in relation to vexatious requests (section 14) which stipulates what the ICO expects from a public authority when considering section 14(1). Gathering evidence in order to identify a developing pattern of behaviour is an important factor as well as the context and history in which a request is made will often be a major factor in determining whether the request is vexatious. The public authority will need to consider the wider circumstances surrounding the request before making a decision as to whether section 14 (1) applies.
ICO guidance on the subject states:
‘Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified. Whilst public authorities should think carefully before refusing a request as vexatious they should not regard section 14(1) as something which is only to be applied in the most extreme of circumstances.
In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request. The public authority may also take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant.’
Accordingly, I have classified this request as vexatious under Section 14(1) by gathering evidence under the following indicators in order to identify whether the request is burdensome.
Burden on the Authority:
FOI legislation is designed to provide opportunities whereby the public can shine a torch on the decision making and workings of a public authority. However, this does not mean that information has to automatically be disclosed. To do so without some consideration would be reckless and likely to breach other relevant legislation, such as the Data Protection Act (DPA)/UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK-GDPR).
In this particular case, it has been identified that there are a total of 119 pages contained within documents relating to your request. Prior to disclosing the requested information, all documents would require reviewing, page by page, in order to establish whether or not there are any concerns with disclosing the contents detailed on each page. This is due to the fact that some of the information contained within will be sensitive/harmful to disclose to the public and would attract exemptions, such as but not limited to, Section 43 ‘Commercial Interests’ and Section 40 ‘Personal Information’ and where exemptions apply the information would need to be redacted.
To review all 119 pages and to redact where necessary would be a time consuming task and it would be a burden on the force to undertake this task. This is due to the fact that the Freedom of Information (FOI) Decision Maker would firstly be required to liaise with numerous business area leads to consider their views on disclosure in relation to any information concerning their own business area. The FOI Decision Maker would then need to review and understand the content of every page and take into consideration all of the concerns raised by the business area lead, in order to make the decision on whether exemptions apply, which exemptions apply, and to which part the exemptions apply to. For example, considerations for Section 40 in relation to any names/signatures of employees that no longer work for the force etc. Following this process the FOI Decision Maker would then be required to redact any information from the documents deemed as sensitive and also draft their response detailing any exemptions being applied, ensuring public interest tests and harm tests are carried out where necessary.
It has been estimated that to review and to take into account the necessary considerations (including liaising with the business area leads) under the FOI Act would take a minimum of 20 minutes per page, which would equate to 39.66 hours. To undertake this task would require a Decision Maker within the FOI Unit to be abstracted from normal duties for approximately 5 working days in order to provide an FOI compliant response in respect of this matter. This does not take into account the amount of time it would take other police officers/staff outside of the FOI Unit away from their duties, to liaise with the FOI Unit regarding the information relevant to their business area.
As at 19/04/2024 there are currently 513 FOI requests logged within the Disclosure Unit and 240 of those FOI requests are currently open requests awaiting completion and this does not include all of the other areas of work in which the Disclosure Unit covers i.e. Court Orders, Subject Access Requests etc. There are currently 3.5 FTE Decision Makers dealing with FOI requests and to abstract one of those Decision Makers from normal duties to undertake this one task would be a considerable burden on the Disclosure Unit, which would significantly undermine the units other obligations in the processing of the 240 open FOI requests and other disclosure work. Although there is no doubting the legal motives or responsibilities for requesting the said information, it is the opinion of Dyfed-Powys Police that the effort to meet the request will be oppressive in terms of the strain on time and resources that the authority cannot reasonably be expected to comply.
Additionally, in considering the above I also make reference to a previous Decision Notice from the ICO, as outlined by the below link, whereby in similar circumstances the ICO concluded at that time that he accepts that the burden is such that it can be properly categorised as being grossly oppressive and dealing with the request under such circumstances cannot be justified. Accordingly, whilst he considers this case to be finely balanced, the Commissioner finds that section 14(1) has been appropriately applied in this instance.
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2014/1025456/fs_50539606.pdf
Conclusion and Decision:
In considering the aforementioned facts I am satisfied that this request meets the criteria (as outlined below) pursuant to the provision of Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 whereby the request is deemed to be ‘vexatious’ as it would pose a substantial burden on the authority.
Section 14(1) of the Act provides:
Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.
Accordingly, I have classified your request as vexatious under Section 14(1) for the reasons as outlined above.
Please note: The Dyfed Powys Police and Crime Commissioner publishes, on their website, details of expenditure over £500 by Dyfed Powys Police from April 2016. This contains details of payments made to Sancus Solutions. The information is available via the following link: Contracts and Expenditure (dyfedpowys-pcc.org.uk)
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 10/05/2024)