Resources

Dear Ms Adams,

Re: Request for Internal Review - Request FS50263454

The Council is in receipt of correspondence from the Information Commissioner asking the Council to conduct an internal review of the handling of your request submitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (our ref. 3733).

You have made this complaint because you had not received a decision with regard to your request for an internal review, made on 7^th July 2009, in which you stated your grounds as follows:

I am sorry that you are dissatisfied with our handling of your requests and I have investigated your complaints under Stage 1 of the Council's Corporate Complaints Procedure. Further details of our procedure can be found on our website: http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/councilgovernmentanddemocracy/councils/contactsconsultationandfeedback/complaints-and-compliments/complaints/

Response

Your original request, for a copy of the results of the most recent Motorcycle on Street survey, was received on 16^th April 2009. On the 16^th May 2009 you requested an internal review because the deadline of the 15^th May had not been met. As the 16^th May was a Saturday, your request was not formally received until Monday the 18^th May, which coincided with the Council sending out the requested information 1 working day after the 20 day limit. You wrote on the 22^nd May 2009 to ask how much money had been spent on commissioning and administering the survey, and wrote again on the 26^th May to ask for clarification on some of the figures in the results, details regarding who prepared the figures and whether they were presented to the Scrutiny committee meeting. On the 2^nd June the Council responded to both of these emails, providing the amount of money spent on the survey, and clarifying the figures where it was possible to do so in accordance with the information that was held. You wrote on the 12^th June asking questions numbered 1 - 5 above. You wrote again on 24^th June to request an internal review of the handing of your request. The Council responded on the 7^th July to ask for clarification of what aspect of your case you wanted investigating and on the same day you resubmitted the questions you'd previously sent on the 12^th June.

In responding to your request for an internal review, I will make reference to the following requirements / provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

Firstly let me apologise for the lack of response to your request for an internal review on 7^th July 2009. It appears that there was some confusion over the grounds for the review: your request did not cite any aspects of non-compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, i.e. you did not express any dissatisfaction with the handling of the request, nor any decisions made pursuant to the Act. An internal review, as defined in section 56 of the Code of Practice, could therefore not be undertaken.

The lack of response by the Council, however, is unacceptable and this aspect of your most recent complaint is upheld.

I will endeavour to respond to each of your comments in turn below, but given that the issues cited in your request do not meet fall under the scope for an internal review, we are limited in the extent to which we can address them here:

In response to questions #1 and #2, there is no requirement under the Freedom of Information to check, pursuant to a request, that the requested information is accurate. I can confirm, however, that the provided information was that which was held at the time of the request, thereby meeting the requirement under section 1(4) of the Act.

If you have any outstanding concerns or queries regarding the accuracy of the information that has been provided to you then these should be directed towards the relevant department. Contact details may be obtained via the following link: http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/transportandstreets/parking/contact/

As per your sentence, “I think that your previous answer to this was Steer Davies Gleave” the Council has already provided a response to the first part of this question. Under section 14(2) the Council is not obliged to comply with a repeated request.

The figures sent to you were from the summary report produced by members of the Parking Department based on the data provided by Steers Davies Gleave.

I can confirm that these were the figures presented to the Scrutiny Committee.

In accordance with the answers to question 1 and 2, I am unable to comment on the accuracy of the figures as part of this review, and therefore am unable to answer the second part of your question.

This completes the internal review into the handling of your Request under the Council's complaints procedure. Please note that this letter has been copied to the Information Commissioner's Office for them to update the details of their complaint, but should you be dissatisfied with our response, you are entitled to contact the Information Commissioner under Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. For your reference, I have provided his contact details below:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Tel: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45

Fax: 01625 524510

Web: www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

Knowledge & Information Management Team

cc. Information Commissioner's Office

4

2

1

Under the Data Protection Act 1998, Data Subjects have rights to challenge, alter or erase the inaccurate and unlawful processing of their information. In the first instance please contact The Data Protection Officer, Information Services, 101 Orchardson Street, London NW8 8EA. If you are not satisfied with our response you may contact The Information Commissioner: Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF