I write frequent press articles for CCR Public Sector publication. This important publication is read by senior professional workin in finance, collections, revenues, benefits and enforcement and is also read by most government agencies. The link below is to a copy of an article that I wrote for the May 2014 edition and concerns the matter of Police and Bailiff Roadside Operations. As many people on here will know, the Metropolitan Police confirmed last week that they have now SUSPENDED these operations [ATTACH=CONFIG]51655[/ATTACH]

Five months ago on 22nd November an important Freedom of Information request was made to the Met Police regarding Police and Bailiff ‘ANPR Roadside Operations’ ( a copy of which is below). As viewers will see from reading below...making the request was simple....but obtaining a response was a whole different matter: 22nd November 2013 the FOI request was submitted to the Met Police. 6th December Met Police confirmation receipt. 24th December Met Police stated that their response 'had been delayed'. 30th December Met Police stated that a 'response had been drafted but awaits approval by a Senior Information Manager'. 31st December the Met Police responded to advise that the request was not 'within the cost threshold' (£450) and furthermore that the information was not 'centrally located'. 6th January the Met Police confirmed receipt of the individuals request for a 'review'. 4th February the individual wrote again seeking an update. 4th March the individual contacted the Met Police once more to complain and stated that she had copied her complaint to the Police Commissioner, the Information Commissioner's Office and also her MP. 14th March the individual sought an 'Internal Review' of the Metropolitan Police's handling of her FOI request. 17th April the Metropolitan Police responded to advise that they had decided to overturn their original decision with regards to questions 2 to 5 and that the information request was actually held by the MPS. With regards to questions 1 & 6 they advised that the review had concluded that 'the information was not held'.