REQUEST: 

I would like to request data regarding the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW)'s legal assistance application process. 

For clarity, here are my specific requests for data spanning the past 5 years: 

1. Legal Assistance Application Data: 

• Year-by-year totals of legal assistance C2 applications submitted over the past 5 years. 
• Breakdown of applications approved and denied, detailed by race, gender, age bracket (e.g., 20-30, 31-40), disability status, and any other demographic categories available. 
• For denied applications, a categorization of the specific reasons for denial, further broken down by the demographic factors outlined above. 
• Data on the average, shortest, and longest durations between application submission and decision, segmented by demographics. 

RESPONSE: 

The Police Federation of England and Wales ("PFEW") relies on section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("FOIA") in response to the above request. This allows public authorities to refuse to comply with a request for information where the cost of compliance exceeds a statutory limit (known as the "Appropriate Limit").  

At present the Appropriate Limit is set at £450 by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (see Reg. 3(3)). The cost of compliance is to be calculated based on a rate of £25 per person per hour (Reg. 4(3)). This means that the Appropriate Limit will be exceeded if it would require more than 18 hours of work. 

For context, in the past five years, in excess of 24,000 C2 forms have been submitted to the PFEW. The C2 form used by the PFEW does not request the demographic information highlighted in the request; consequently, the PFEW does not hold the demographic statistics requested. Whilst it may be possible to identify some or all of the demographic factors requested in any particular case (from analysing the C2 form and facts of the case), to determine this would require a manual review of each C2 form. Any such demographic statistics would then need to be compiled.  A manual review would also be required in order to determine, for each case, the date on which it was submitted and the date on which it was decided. The PFEW estimates that a manual review of each C2 form and capturing any relevant demographic information (where available) would take a minimum of 30 minutes. 

The PFEW estimates that the time required to be invested in attempting to comply with the above request would exceed 12,000 hours, which exceeds the Appropriate Limit.  

If the requestor wishes to refine the request limiting the request to the year-by-year totals for C2 applications for legal assistance submitted over the past five years, the PFEW will consider the refined request.  

REQUEST: 

All of the above (point 1) but for C4 applications/appeals. 

RESPONSE: 

As above, the PFEW relies on section 12 of FOIA in response to the above request on the basis that the costs expected to be incurred in relation to the request will exceed the Appropriate Limit. 

For context, in the past five years, over 170 C4 forms have been submitted to the PFEW. As with the C2 form, the C4 form used by the PFEW does not request the demographic information highlighted in the request; consequently, the PFEW does not hold the demographic statistics requested. Whilst it may be possible to identify the demographic factors requested in any particular case (from analysing the C4 form and facts of the case), to determine this would require a manual review of each C4 form. Any such demographic statistics would then need to be compiled.  A manual review would also be required in order to determine, for each case, the date on which it was submitted, the date on which it was decided. The PFEW estimates that a manual review of each C4 form and capturing any relevant demographic information (where available) would take a minimum of 30 minutes.  

The PFEW estimates that the time required to be invested in attempting to comply with the above request would exceed 85 hours, which exceeds the Appropriate Limit . 

If the requestor wishes to refine the request limiting it to the year-by-year totals for C4 applications submitted over the past five years, the PFEW will consider the refined request. 

REQUEST: 

General 

• PFEW Service Level Agreements/TOBA with external advisors and its members for employment matters 

RESPONSE: 

The PFEW confirms that it does hold this information and discloses a copy of its current template Terms of Business Agreement for Civil Claims (including employment matters) ("Template TOBA"). The Template TOBA is provided to all external panel firms of solicitors and provides a basis upon which contractual negotiations for the provision of legal services are concluded.  

The Template TOBA contains two Schedules: 

• Schedule 1 contains the Civil and Employment Service Level Agreement 
• Schedule 2 contains the Protocols and Guidelines or Legal Support 

The PFEW has applied limited redactions to the information within the Template TOBA on the basis that the information is exempt from disclosure under section 40 of FOIA. This is because the information comprises personal data the disclosure of which would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the UK GDPR. 

In respect of final agreed contracts with its panel firms, the PFEW relies on the exemption in section 43 of FOIA that the disclosure of this information would likely be prejudicial to the commercial interests of the PFEW and each of the panel firms of solicitors. The PFEW takes this position on the basis that: 

• The Template TOBA forms the basis upon which the PFEW contracts with its panel firms of solicitors, the final negotiation of which is a matter between the PFEW and each panel firm. Disclosing the final TOBA in each case would be likely to prejudice: 

• the ability of each panel firm in its commercial negotiations with other contractual counterparties for the provision of legal services; and 
• the PFEW's contractual negotiations as between each of its panel member firms and any other firm of solicitors that may be appointed to the panel in the future. 

• But for the disclosure of the final TOBA in each case, the likely prejudice to the PFEW and each of its panel firms would be unlikely to materialise. 

In any event, the PFEW has chosen to disclose the Template TOBA which provides the requestor with a general indication of the PFEW's contractual terms but which is not likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the PFEW and/or each panel firm in respect of any specifically negotiated terms governing their contractual relationship.   

In applying this exemption, the PFEW considers that while there is a public interest in certain information being made available to the public, it considers that the precise terms on which it engages its external legal advisors in relation to employment matters is not in of itself a matter of public interest, or a matter of public concern. Conversely, the PFEW considers that there is a strong public interest in both it and its legal advisors being able to agree commercial terms and for these commercial terms not to be made public in a manner which would risk prejudicing either party's commercial interests as outlined above. The PFEW considers that this public interest outweighs any countervailing public interest in disclosure in relation to this request.  

REQUEST 

• How much has been spent in ET case proceedings in the past 5 years, broken down by year and the demographics as above. 

RESPONSE: 

The PFEW relies on section 12 of FOIA in response to the above request on the basis that the costs expected to be incurred in relation to the request will exceed the Appropriate Limit. 

In order to first confirm the PFEW's total spend on Employment Tribunal proceedings in the past five years, the PFEW would be required to review all invoices received from its panel of external solicitors and manually determine which of the fess charged related to Employment Tribunal proceedings.  

Additionally, the PFEW does not hold the demographic statistics requested. Whilst it may be possible to identify the demographic factors requested in each case, to determine this would require a manual review of every Employment Tribunal case file (as well as other documents such as the C2 application form) to determine whether the demographic factors can be deduced. Any such demographic statistics would then need to be compiled.    

Against the background of receiving in excess of 24,000 claims for assistance over the past five years, the PFEW estimates that a manual review of all invoices from its panel of external solicitors followed by a manual review of each case file in scope for demographic information would exceed the Appropriate Limit. 

If the requestor wishes to refine the request limiting it to the year-by-year totals for ET cases supported by the PFEW over the past five years, the PFEW will consider the refined request. 

REQUEST: 

• What is the current panel of external solicitors who deal with employment matters? Are these firms/professionals specialised in Employment and/or discrimination law? 

RESPONSE: 

From 1st January 2019, the PFEW has instructed the following panel firms on new claims relating to employment matters: 

• FBC Manby Bowdler 
• Haighs Law 
• HCR Solicitors 
• Hempsons 
• JMW Solicitors 
• Pattinson & Brewer 
• Penningtons Manches Cooper 
• Ralli Solicitors 
• Slater & Gordon 
• Taylor Law 
• Waldrons Solicitors  

The PFEW's panel firms all have specialist employment law experience, including in relation to discrimination-related issues. 

REQUEST: 

• The date at which PFEW stopped sharing merits assessment letters with c2 applicants and the reasons why. 

RESPONSE: 

The PFEW ceased sharing merits letters with members in 2019.  

As to the reasons why the PFEW ceased to share merits letters with members in 2019, that information is exempt from disclosure under section 42 of FOIA, because it is protected by legal professional privilege.     

In applying this exemption, the PFEW considers that while there is a public interest in certain information being made available to the public, a very strong public interest justification would be required for details of information protected by legal professional privilege to be disclosed. The PFEW does not consider such a public interest to be engaged in relation to this request. Conversely the PFEW considers that there is very strong public interest in it being able to receive legal advice, and for legal professional privilege to be maintained in such information, and that this public interest outweighs any public interest in disclosure.  

REQUEST: 

Grievance Data re Met only: 

• Yearly-by-year totals of grievances raised where members engaged with PFEW over the past 5 years. 
• Breakdown of grievances raised, detailed by race, gender, age bracket (e.g., 20-30, 31-40), disability status, and any other demographic categories available. 

RESPONSE: 

The requestor has clarified that she is seeking "information in relation to formal grievances raised by Metropolitan Police officers (as distinct from C2/C4 applications), where these formal grievances have involved engagement with the PFEW/FedReps". 

The PFEW relies on section 12 of FOIA in response to the above request on the basis that the costs expected to be incurred in relation to the request will exceed the Appropriate Limit. 

The PFEW has no central record of formal grievances raised by Metropolitan Police officers, as distinct from other claims made by PFEW members. Accordingly the request would require a manual review of all claims files to determine which ones contain formal grievances raised by Metropolitan Police officers. 

Additionally, the PFEW does not hold the demographic statistics requested. Whilst it may be possible to identify the demographic factors requested in any particular case (from analysing the relevant documents), this would require a manual review of the underlying documentation to determine whether the demographic factors can be deduced. Any such demographic statistics would then need to be compiled.  

Against the background of receiving in excess of 20,000 claims for assistance over the past five years, the PFEW estimates that a manual review of its claims record for this period and undertaking a review of the relevant claims for demographic information would exceed the Appropriate Limit.  

The PFEW does not consider that it is possible for the requestor to meaningfully refine this request given that the PFEW does not hold a central record of formal grievances raised by Metropolitan Police officers or the demographic statistics requested. 

REQUEST: 

Feedback Mechanism Data: 

• Year-by-year counts of feedback or complaints related to the legal assistance application process. 
• Categories of complaints (e.g., perceived discrimination, delay, communication issues) 
• Details on how these complaints were resolved, including any actions taken by PFEW in response. 

RESPONSE: 

The PFEW relies on section 12 of FOIA in response to the above request on the basis that the costs expected to be incurred in relation to the request will exceed the Appropriate Limit. 

Feedback (whether constructive, negative or positive) and complaints relating to the legal assistance application process can be provided in a broad variety of ways. For example, the PFEW not only receives feedback and complaints directly through formal communication channels but also informally, including through emails and social media. Given the broad scope for the request, the task of collating all feedback and complaints, categorising and dating each instance, and determining how they were each resolved would, in the PFEW's estimation exceed the Appropriate Limit. 

If the requestor wishes to refine the request limiting it to the total number (and categories) of formal complaints received by the PFEW regarding the legal assistance process for the years 2022 and 2023, the PFEW will consider the refined request.  

QUESTION: 

• A copy of PFEW Complaints Process 

RESPONSE: 

If a complaint concerns how the PFEW has processed a member’s application, it would be usual for the member to contact the National Secretary’s office to register their complaint. This is also the case for any complaints in relation to the conduct and performance of Federation Representatives, the process for which can be found in Appendix 9 of the Federation Rules.  

For ease, Appendix 9 can be found through the following link on page 175: https://www.polfed.org/media/18427/pfew-rules-2021-v2.pdf  

REQUEST: 

• Confirmation whether PFEW is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. If not, why not? Whether PFEW is exempt from financial regulation and, if so, signpost me to the appropriate legislation and/or provide detailed reasons as to why. 

RESPONSE: 

PFEW is not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as it does not provide regulated financial services or products. PFEW’s core functions are representation, influencing and support to its police officer members. 

We suggest the following website for further information on the legal basis: 

www.fca.org.uk/firms/authorisation 

REQUEST: 

• All the personal data you hold regarding my C4 application, including the professional/advisor responsible for its assessment. 

RESPONSE: 

The PFEW relies on section 40 of FOIA in response to the above request on the basis that the request is properly a request for the requestor's personal data. For completeness, the PFEW has notified the requestor that it intends to treat this request separately as a request for access to personal data under Article 15 of the UK GDPR and will respond accordingly.