Stolen pets 690/2022
FOI Reference: 690/2022
Request:
Original Request:
I am writing to request the number of stolen pets in your jurisdiction.
I am requesting the number of thefts be broken down:
- By specific breed
- Over the last five years, by calendar year (2017-2022).
If possible, I am requesting to know the average cost of each theft.
Amended request:
Is it possible to know the number of thefts for 2017 and 2018?
Is it also possible to get a breakdown of the thefts by animal, using the following list of animals:
Birds, Cats, Chickens, Dogs, Ferrets, Gerbils, Goats, Guinea pigs, Hamsters, Hedgehogs, Horses, Lizards, Mice, Micro pigs, Other small animals, Rabbits, Snakes, Spiders, Tortoises, Turtles
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.
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.
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.
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.”
The cost of providing you with the information requested in respect of 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 113.68 hours) to comply with this part of your request. The regulations can be located @
www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20043244.htm
The Freedom of Information Unit has been advised that the information requested in relation to your request regarding reports of revenge porn and their outcomes 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 ‘breed’ and ‘value’ is not a required entry on a crime and each crime record will need to be checked to see if it this information is held. It has been established that there are 681 crime records which would require individual review to establish this information.
In order to do this, it is estimated it would take approximately 10 minutes to review each record. The relevant time estimate is detailed below:
|
Year |
Crimes |
Time |
|
2017 |
134 |
22.33 |
|
2018 |
106 |
17.76 |
|
2019 |
106 |
17.76 |
|
2020 |
128 |
21.33 |
|
2021 |
141 |
23.5 |
|
2022 |
66 |
11 |
|
Total |
681 |
113.68 |
Therefore, total time estimate to complete request = 113.68 hours
In accordance 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 me.
Please also be advised that should the request be refined, it does not remove the Force’s right to cite exemptions if relevant.
Although excess cost removed the force’s obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, as a gesture of goodwill, I have supplied some 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.
Response:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys police does hold information in relation to your request regarding the type of animal. These are detailed below:
|
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
Total |
|
|
Animal |
|||||||
|
ANIMAL TRAPS |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Animals |
7 |
3 |
17 |
10 |
25 |
32 |
94 |
|
BEE |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
BEE HIVE |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
BIRD |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
CALF |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
|
CAT |
2 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
0 |
23 |
|
CATS |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
CHICKEN |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
6 |
|
CHICKENS |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
COW |
6 |
4 |
6 |
2 |
8 |
3 |
29 |
|
DOG |
33 |
24 |
22 |
31 |
36 |
9 |
155 |
|
DOGS |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
DONKEY |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
DUCKS |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
EWE |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
|
EWES |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
|
FISH |
3 |
3 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
17 |
|
GOAT |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
|
GOOSE |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
HEFIER |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
HEN |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
HOGLETS |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
HORSE |
3 |
7 |
8 |
6 |
5 |
0 |
28 |
|
KOI CARP |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
LAMB |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
LAMBS |
5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
LOBSTER |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
MULE SHEEP |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
OWL |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
PARROT |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
PEACOCK |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
PIG |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
PIGLET |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
QUEEN BEE |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
RABBIT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
RABBITS |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
RAM |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
|
SHEEP |
131 |
42 |
35 |
59 |
49 |
14 |
330 |
|
SMALL ANIMALS |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
10 |
|
TORTOISE |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
Grand Total |
134 |
106 |
106 |
128 |
141 |
66 |
681 |
This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on the 5th Oct 2022.