Metropolitan Police "Mystery Shopper" challenge ...

[detective-boy]

MPS Marks out of 10: 7/10 (Was 10/10: Acknowledged request but incorrect details in letter. Will drop to 0/10 if they actually do send me a PNC printout ...).

No word from Westminster yet. Marks out of 10: 7/10 (Was 8/10: No acknowledgement within a week).

Well overdue for an update! Been way too busy!

No contact from the MPS (following the inaccurate acknowledgement) but they did cash the cheque, nor from Westminster (who didn't, but the Royal Mail assure me the letter was delivered).

Have now written to both, drawing attention to their shortfalls in relation to the requirements of the DPA and requesting (a) a meaningful response and (b) an explanation.

Marks out of 10 for both MPS and Westminster now: 1/10 - no response well outside the 40 days allowed.

If I haven't heard from them by the end of the month I will write to the Information Commissioner (they have a nice complaint form to download from their site) and complain.

 

[bluestreak]

quelle surprise!

 

[scott_forester]

Rang the Parking Solutions number ... and found they only did CCTV to do with parking offences.

I know someone who got CCTV footage which showed people putting up the parking regulation sign next to his parked car, shortly afterwards he got a ticket for.

Since then he's become addicted to the DPA - using at the moment to prove that his building society illegal changed the ownership of his house to his ex-wife. Who then used this to get him arrested for harassment for parking his car on his drive.

 

[pdxm]

For some years now I've thought that the Metropolitan Police Service (and all police services, in fact) should carry out routine "mystery shopper" exercises in relation to the routine interactions between their officers / staff and the public.

Well now an opportunity has arisen for a little test!

Yesterday evening I had been at Pride with a friend. As we walked through the West End minding our own business we encountered a group of football fans being pursued by a group of police officers. The officers were mainly focused on the fans but a couple of them seemed to be accosting anyone who happened to be in the street. They accosted my friend and I, brandishing batons and roughly pushing us and several other uninvolved pedestrians across the street for no immediate reason I could see.

So let's find out whether the arrangements for gaining access to CCTV footage (City of Westminster), LB Camden and Metropolitan Police and for asking for an explanation / pursuing a complaint actually work...

Step 1: Data Protection Act subject access requests to Westminster, Camden and the MPS.

I will update this thread with progress!

Stwrike him wroughly centurion! FFF

 

[detective-boy]

Have now written to both, drawing attention to their shortfalls in relation to the requirements of the DPA and requesting (a) a meaningful response and (b) an explanation.

Marks out of 10 for both MPS and Westminster now: 1/10 - no response well outside the 40 days allowed.

Well the threat to report them to the Information Commissioner seems to have engendered some action!

Westminster first: Nice letter from their CCTV manager enclosing a copy of a letter sent on 21 July (i.e. two weeks after request) which appears to have been eaten by the Post Office somewhere between Westminster and Twickenham! The original letter states they have no relevant footage but contains enough detail to suggest a meaningful enquiry on their part "although the camera at Cambridge Crircus has images of football fans ... and police manoeuvring them towards Centre Point ... it did not contain any images of you or your friend" and an explanation of how the system can only catch images in one direction at any one time. It also confirms the police had NOT made any similar request of them.

And it would appear they do not routinely charge the £10 fee they could - I think usually only if they find something which necessitates some time in copying, etc.

Westminster final points: 9 out of 10 (original search for info. on website was difficult but once the correct contact details were found it was quick, easy and efficient. No unnecessary charge made and I can't really blame them for the original response going astray.)

Metropolitan Police: Couple of phone calls (to both my contact numbers) stating that they didn't know what had happened to my original request for a copy of a "crime report" (! ) but if I could send a copy of the receipt for my payment they would chase it up. Faxed copy of receipt which they acknowledged a few days ago and also explained it was not a "crime report" I had requested (to which the clerk stated she didn't really know about the actual requests, just the administration side!).

Still waiting for a meaningful response. Ongoing marks out of ten: 1.

 

[TopCat]

How is this going? Still got faith in the system DB?

 

[detective-boy]

How is this going? Still got faith in the system DB?

Glad you resurrected the thread! I had a couple of looks for it but couldn't find it and then it got forgotten!

Eventually got a final answer from the Met in a letter dated 7.12.06, which arrived about 12.12.06.

They had contacted all units which may have gathered CCTV on the day in question and none had done so. They also pointed out that Westminster Council may have footage and that they hadn't asked for, or retained, any such footage so I should check there (which tied up with the fact that Westminster said they had had no police request).

So, in terms of eventually getting an answer to a routine request for CCTV footage, the final results:

1. LB Camden: 8/10 - difficult to initially find the right place to ask, but once contact made a very prompt, helpful, thorough answer.

2. LB Westminster: 9/10 - again making initial contact could have been easier but again a prompt (giving them the benefit of the doubt that they actually replied on 21.7.06 and the Post Office lost the letter!) thorough, detailed reply. And they didn't take the fee they could have done!

3. Met Police: 1/10 - repeated pressure needed to eventually get an answer. Staff clearly confused about what they were doing (in fairness, it was a somewhat more complex enquiry than those to the councils because the police units deals with all sorts of Data Protection and Freedom of Information Act requests and a CCTV one would not be amongst the most common). Eventually got an answer ... but it too five months, just a little more than the 40 days allowed.

So, do I still have faith in the system? Yes, overall. I have seen nothing to suggest that my request has not been properly answered. In relation to the councils, they acted promptly and pretty efficiently. They could do more to advertise to people, even if only on their website, how to go about making such a request (bearing in mind they run extensive CCTV systems).

But the Met Police ... as hopeless a response as I was expecting, to be honest. As an organisation they are notoriously bad at dealing with telephone / personal / written requests from the public and this simply confirms that.

 

[TAE]

There is, of course, no way of knowing whether they really did not have any footage.

 

[TopCat]

There is, of course, no way of knowing whether they really did not have any footage.

Well that's the rub eh?

Do you trust them to tell the truth?

 

[detective-boy]

There is, of course, no way of knowing whether they really did not have any footage.

There could never be. We have to trust all public bodies to a large extent. As I said, nothing has happened in this case which makes me think there has been any deliberate witholding of anything but the pretty high level of confidence I have that that is the case with the two councils (due to the pretty efficient way in which they did what they did and the fact that they included information in their answers which was not directly asked for) is not matched by the Met, where their competence is less than obvious and, even if there has been no deliberate witholding of anything, the possibility of fuck-up oversight remains ...

They really are pretty dire!

 

[stat]

very interesting, db - thanks for posting up your test!