SUPERFOI

FOI MODEL:

DRAFT A STANDARD MODEL FOI LETTER  SO THAT COCOO MAY GET ALL THE INFO IT NEEDS TO:

-SEEK DISCLOSURES THAT HELP ESTABLISH WHETHER COCOO HAS LOCUS [TO REPRESENT TAXPAYER/WPI]( READ THE SUPERPROMPT)

-SEEK DISCLOSURE OF PUBLIC INFO THAT WILL HELP ESTABLISH WHETHER THE DORCAP (DECISION, OMISSION, REULATION, CONDUCT, ACTION OR POLICY) MADE BY THE AGENT OF THE STATE  (PUBLIC BODY /REGULATOR/ OFFICIAL] COULD BE ultravires (uv), OR LIABLE FOR MISEFEASANCE, OR ABUSE OF POWER, OR BAD FAITH, FAILURE TO NOTIFY OR ASSESS THE UV RISKS AND FORESEEABLE HARMS, OR RECKLESS CONDUCT CAUSING ALSO COMPETITION DISTORTIONS.

-SEEK DISCLOSURE OF THE EXISTENCE (AND CONTENT) OF OF INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATIONS STARTED BY THE STATE (AGAINST THE AGENT, TO ESTABLISH IF IT IS LIABLE FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE WRONGS: (UV, MISFEASANCE, ETC)?   IF NOT, SEEK DISCLOSURE OF THE REAONS WHY NOT.  IF YES, WHAT WAS THE INVESTIGATION OUTCOME? DID THE AGENT PAY THE STATE [in other words ”se hizo una accion de regreso, Y FUE EXITOSA ? SI NO, POR QUE NO? .  DISCLOSE ANY URLS ON THE DISCIPLINARY INVESTIATION AND THE A.REGRESO DECISIONS

=====================

Aquí tienes el análisis para el Reino Unido (UK). La situación es diferente a España porque el sistema británico protege mucho más al funcionario (Crown Immunity/Indemnity), pero sí existen plazos legales si el Estado quisiera recuperar el dinero.

EN REINO UNIDO (UK): NO EXISTE UNA “ACCIÓN DE REGRESO” AUTOMÁTICA

En UK no existe un procedimiento administrativo reglado llamado “Acción de Regreso” como en España. Si el Estado (The Crown/HMRC) paga una indemnización a una víctima por culpa de un funcionario, el Estado normalmente absorbe el coste (Vicarious Liability).

Sin embargo, si el funcionario actuó con mala fe (bad faith), fraude o negligencia grave (gross negligence), el Estado podría teóricamente demandarlo para recuperar el dinero.

1. LAS VÍAS LEGALES Y SUS PLAZOS (TIME LIMITS)

Existen dos rutas principales por las que el Estado podría reclamar a su agente, cada una con su propio reloj:

A. CIVIL LIABILITY (CONTRIBUTION) ACT 1978 (La más parecida al Regreso)

Esta ley permite a quien ha pagado (el Estado) reclamar una “contribución” a otra persona responsable del mismo daño (el funcionario).

• PLAZO (Time Limit): 2 AÑOS.

• DIES A QUO (Inicio): Desde la fecha en que el Estado fue declarado responsable (fecha de la Sentencia o del Acuerdo/Settlement con la víctima).

  • Referencia Legal: Limitation Act 1980, Section 10.

  • Advertencia: Es un plazo muy corto. Si HMRC llega a un acuerdo hoy, solo tiene 2 años para demandar al funcionario.

B. BREACH OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT (Incumplimiento de Contrato)

El Estado demanda al funcionario por violar su contrato laboral (Civil Service Code) al actuar ilegalmente.

• PLAZO (Time Limit): 6 AÑOS.

• DIES A QUO (Inicio): Desde el momento en que ocurrió el incumplimiento (la acción ilegal) o desde que se produjo el daño financiero (el pago).

  • Referencia Legal: Limitation Act 1980, Section 5.

COMPARATIVA DE PLAZOS DE “REGRESO”

ESTRATEGIA PARA SU FOI EN UK (HMRC)

Dado que en UK es rarísimo que demanden al funcionario (normalmente solo lo despiden), su carta FOI debe ser más incisiva para exponer la inacción financiera:

1. Pregunta Clave: “Confirm whether HMRC has ever exercised its rights under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 to recover damages from officials in cases of gross negligence in the last 10 years.”

2. El “Truco” del Plazo: Si HMRC responde que pagaron compensaciones en 2022 o 2023, usted sabe que el plazo de 2 años para recuperar ese dinero público está a punto de expirar o ya expiró.

3. Argumento de Vacío (Vacuum): Si dejan pasar los 2 años sin demandar al funcionario, han “regalado” dinero público. Eso es Maladministration.

Siguiente paso: ¿Desea que redacte la pregunta específica sobre el “Expiry of Contribution Rights” para insertarla en la FOI a HMRC?

[Date]

[Name of Public Body / Regulator]

Freedom of Information / Information Governance Team

[Address / Email]

RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST

SUBJECT: [Insert specific Policy/Decision/Omission Name] (The “DORCAP”)

Dear Information Officer,

Context and Purpose of Request

I write on behalf of Competition & Consumer Organisation Party Limited (COCOO.uk), a charity dedicated to protecting the Wider Public Interest (WPI) and the taxpayer. We intervene in regulatory failures where the harm is diffuse (affecting the general public or fragmented groups) and where an “enforcement vacuum” exists because no individual victim has the financial incentive to sue.

This request is made to assess whether the specific DORCAP (Decision, Omission, Regulation, Conduct, Action, or Policy) referenced above meets the criteria for “Rule of Law” intervention established in Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012]. Specifically, we seek to verify if this matter involves ultra vires conduct, misfeasance, or a failure to mitigate foreseeable harms to the taxpayer.

Please provide the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

PART 1: ESTABLISHING THE “ENFORCEMENT VACUUM” (Locus Standi Data)

To determine if COCOO has standing, we require data proving that “no other claimant” is likely to act.

1. Victim Demographics:

   • Please provide a breakdown of the number of complaints or representations received regarding this matter in the last [X] years, categorised by complainant type (e.g., “Individual/Household,” “SME,” vs. “Large Corporate/Trade Body”).

2. The “Rational Apathy” Economics:

   • Does the Authority hold any impact assessment, internal memo, or board paper that estimates the average financial loss per person/consumer resulting from this issue? (e.g., “Estimated consumer detriment is £50 per annum”).

3. Litigation History:

   • Has any commercial entity or Trade Association commenced Judicial Review proceedings or civil litigation against the Authority regarding this specific DORCAP in the last 3 years? (A “Nil” return confirms the enforcement vacuum).

PART 2: LEGALITY, RISK & “REGRESO” (Governance Checks)

To determine if the Authority failed to assess legality or recover losses from negligent agents.

4. Ultra Vires Risk Assessment:

   • Please disclose the existence (and, if not privileged, the content) of any Risk Register entry, Board Submission, or Accounting Officer Minute that flagged the risk of this DORCAP being unlawful, ultra vires, or liable to challenge as “Medium” or “High.”

   • Specifically, did the Authority’s legal or compliance team formally notify the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) of these risks prior to the decision?

5. Disciplinary & Recovery Actions (“The Regreso”):

   • Internal Investigation: Has the Authority initiated any internal disciplinary investigation (under the Civil Service Code or Staff Handbook) to determine if the agent(s) responsible for this DORCAP acted with misfeasance, gross negligence, or bad faith?

     • If “Yes”: What was the outcome?

     • If “No”: Please disclose any recorded rationale explaining why no investigation was deemed necessary despite the alleged failure/loss.

   • Recovery of Funds: If this DORCAP resulted in the Authority paying compensation, damages, or legal costs (to date totalling £[INSERT ESTIMATE IF KNOWN]), has the Authority sought contribution or indemnity from the individual official(s) involved (under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 or internal policy)?

PART 3: SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES [SELECT ONE MODULE ONLY]

Please treat the following specific questions as central to this request:

[INSERT ONLY THE RELEVANT MODULE FROM THE LIST BELOW]

THE MODULES (Copy & Paste ONE into Part 3 above)

MODULE 1: THE “ZOMBIE REGULATOR” (Inaction on Pollution/Health)

• Enforcement Data: Please provide the total number of substantiated breaches recorded regarding [INSERT ISSUE] in the last [X] years. Of these, how many resulted in:

  • (a) Formal Prosecution/Civil Penalties.

  • (b) “Soft” remedies (Warnings, Advice).

  • (c) No Further Action (NFA).

• Resource Constraints: Please disclose any internal correspondence or memos sent to the sponsoring Department (e.g., DEFRA/Treasury) in the last 2 years stating that the Authority “lacks the resources” or funding to effectively enforce these regulations.

MODULE 2: “PROCUREMENT WASTE” & VIP LANES

• The Exemption: For Contract [INSERT REF], please disclose the specific regulation (e.g., Reg 32 PCR 2015) relied upon to bypass competitive tendering.

• Conflict of Interest: Please disclose the Conflict of Interest Declarations for the SRO and Ministers involved in the approval chain.

• Challenges: Did the Authority receive any “Letter Before Action” from rival bidders that was subsequently withdrawn? (Evidence of “silencing” by market fear).

MODULE 3: DATA BARTERING & PRIVACY

• Valuation: Regarding the transfer of data to [INSERT COMPANY], please disclose the “Fair Market Value” assessment conducted prior to the agreement. If none exists, confirm if the data was treated as having zero value.

• Consent Power: Please cite the specific statutory power relied upon to transfer this data without explicit patient/citizen consent.

MODULE 4: SOFT REMEDIES (Lenient Fines)

• Gain vs. Fine: Please disclose the methodology used to calculate the fine in Case [REF]. Specifically, did the Authority calculate the “financial gain” the company made from the breach?

• The Gap: Was the final fine imposed lower than the calculated financial gain? If yes, please disclose the “reduction factors” applied (e.g., settlement discounts).

MODULE 5: UNCLAIMED FUNDS (Cy-près)

• The Pot: Please confirm the total value of “Undistributed Restitution Funds” currently held regarding [CASE NAME].

• The Destination: Please disclose the current proposal for these funds. Is the Authority considering a cy-près distribution to a third party? If so, has the Authority considered transferring these funds to the HMRC Consolidated Fund (for the benefit of the Taxpayer)?

MODULE 6: THE “REGRESO” TRAP (Specific)

• Total Loss: Confirm the total sum of public money paid out in damages/costs regarding [CASE NAME].

• The Indemnity Decision: Please disclose the formal decision log where the Authority decided not to seek financial recovery from the officials responsible for the error. What “Public Interest” justification was used to burden the taxpayer with this cost instead of the responsible agent?