• Date of Letter: 30 June 2025
• Date Letter Received/Processed by me: [Date you received this letter, e.g., 30 June 2025]
• Incident Type: Formal Response Received from Police (FOI Request - "Neither Confirm Nor Deny" Citing Exemptions).
• From: K Slattery, Public Access Officer, Joint Information Management Unit, Thames Valley Police.
• To: Myself (Waseem Malik).
• Police FOI Reference: 01/FOI/25/015391/U
• Relates to My FOI Request: My FOI request submitted on 02 June 2025 seeking records on potential bias, resource allocation, and procedural decisions, specifically:
  • TVP resource allocation for the May 29th joint visit with Sue Sorce (Log #268).
  • Section 25 (Police Act 1996) agreements with Abri Housing.
  • Internal communications between PC Rust and PC Hammond regarding my harassment report CRN 43256258400.
  • (This appears to be the same request as detailed in Log #292, but that log had a slightly different set of requested details. This letter confirms the content of the request being responded to).
• Details of TVP's Response Letter:
  • Thames Valley Police have formally responded to my FOI request of June 2, 2025, stating they can "neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested."
  • This "neither confirm nor deny" (NCND) refusal is justified by citing two exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
    1. Section 40(5)(a)(b) Personal Information: Arguing that confirming/denying would breach privacy rights under the DPA 2018.
    2. Section 30(3) Investigations & Proceedings: Arguing that confirming/denying could jeopardise ongoing or future investigations or legal cases.
  • The letter outlines my right to request an internal review of this decision and then to complain to the ICO.
• My Perception of Purpose & Impact:
  • This is another formal refusal from TVP to provide critical information I have requested regarding their coordination with Abri Housing and their internal handling of my cases.
  • Their consistent use of the NCND response, citing exemptions for personal information and ongoing investigations, feels like a deliberate strategy of "procedural suppression" to obstruct my access to evidence.
  • This refusal prevents me from obtaining records that could prove my allegations of improper collusion, biased resource allocation (e.g., for the joint visit with Sue Sorce), and procedural inconsistencies in how my harassment reports are being managed.
  • This is now a clear pattern of refusal from TVP's Public Access unit (see also Log #354, #460).
  • I will need to proceed with the next step in the FOI process, which is to request an internal review of this decision, challenging their application of the S.40 and S.30 exemptions.
• Context/Link to Other Events: This is TVP's formal response to my FOI request of June 2, 2025 (likely the one detailed in Log #292). It mirrors their previous refusals to other FOI requests on similar grounds.
• Evidence: The original letter from Thames Valley Police dated 30 June 2025 (Ref: 01/FOI/25/015391/U).