FOI Request on Dog Attack Statistics.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d ... statistics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request (Our Reference: DTUP-8SLDV3)

I am writing in response to your recent request for information received 20th March 2012.
Your request has been considered under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act
2000. You requested the following information:

a. Out of these 24,000 reported dog attacks how many of them were actually
reported to the Police?

b. In how many of these reported dog attacks have the Police declined to
take action?

c. Finally where Royal Mail has considered there is sufficient evidence for
instructions to Legal Services by their Accident Administration Units to act
on behalf of victims in proceedings under the Dogs Act 1891 or Dangerous
Dogs Act 1991 how many times has Legal Services acted on behalf of
victims in proceedings?

Unfortunately, it is not possible to obtain the information you have requested. The
information requested in all three points of your request is not collated or recorded
centrally by our HR or Security departments. In order to identify whether all of the
requested information has, or has not, been documented in the records of each dog attack
incident it would be necessary for us to manually search all records held for any relevant
cases. This would be a huge undertaking as paper copies of incident reports are held at
local offices across the country. Due to this, the number of records involved and the range
of years covered by your request, we believe that this task would significantly exceed the
appropriate cost limit under section 12 of the FOI Act. For Royal Mail the cost limit is set at
£450, which is equivalent to one person spending 18 hours identifying, locating and
retrieving the requested information.

Where we reasonably estimate that the cost of complying with a request would exceed the
appropriate limit we are not obliged to comply with the request. However, you may wish to
consider narrowing the scope of your request. For example, it may be possible to retrieve
some information for a smal er number of cases, within a shorter time frame. You might
also consider focussing on a particular aspect of your original request; such as legal
proceedings. Any new or revised request will of course be considered under the terms of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and we will provide you with a fresh response.
Please note however, that other exemptions from disclosure could potentially apply even
where the cost limit is not applicable.

The safety of our employees is of paramount importance to Royal Mail and whilst we have
a legal commitment to deliver to all addresses, we also have a duty under Health and
Safety law to reduce risks and prevent injury to our people. Unfortunately, dog attacks are
a hazard faced by our postmen and women every working day. These attacks cause great
distress and in too many cases serious injuries.

Our main aim is to prevent attacks. If we feel that there is a risk from a dog, or any other
animal, at an individual address, we are committed to working with the customer to agree
simple steps to ensure that we can deliver the mail safely. We always welcome the
cooperation of our customers for taking responsibility for keeping their pets under control.
We also regularly communicate with our people about the dangers of dog attacks and
provide advice to postmen and women on techniques to minimise harm in the event of an
attack.

Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union have pledged to work together to raise
awareness of the dangers of aggressive dogs, with Royal Mail conducting a number of
awareness campaigns to urge customers to keep their pets under control. Furthermore,
Royal Mail has invested resource into equipment to help its postmen and women reduce
risk of injury when out on delivery. This includes 90,000 posting pegs being issued to staff,
this device helps postmen and women put letters through letter boxes whilst protecting
their fingers.

Further to this Royal Mail has recently announced the launch of an independent inquiry
into dog attacks on postal workers, a Press Release for which has been provided with this
response. This aims to address the prevalence and consequences of such attacks.

If for any reason you are not satisfied with the response to your request for information,
you do have the right to request a review. If you wish to do so please set out your reasons
in writing and send to the Head of Information Compliance, Royal Mail Group, Company
Secretary's Office, 100 Victoria Embankment, LONDON, EC4Y 0HQ. An internal panel will
then review the request, and you will be advised of the outcome.
If, having requested an internal review, you are still not satisfied with our response you also
have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
WILMSLOW
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 01625 545 700
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yours Sincerely



Daniel Tulp
Information Rights Officer
Company Secretary’s Office

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Frankly it amazes me that RM don't have centralized records for these kind of things. I mean if you going to have a national approach to something, surely the first step would be to see if the problem is national of whether certain conditions are down to local problems and attitudes. If not you are operating in the dark and reacting to rumor and media stories rather than taking any meaningful steps to address the problem in a systematic way.

[pink panther]

RM really don't give a four X about dog attacks our posties safety.

[Thehair]

c. Finally where Royal Mail has considered there is sufficient evidence for
instructions to Legal Services by their Accident Administration Units to act
on behalf of victims in proceedings under the Dogs Act 1891 or Dangerous
Dogs Act 1991 how many times has Legal Services acted on behalf of
victims in proceedings?

The answer to this one is I suspect ZERO, which quite frankly I find disgraceful