Download original attachment
(Word document)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request
'Motorbike parking bays'.
(Word document)
Resources
Knowledge and Information Management Team |
Information Services |
|
101 Orchardson Street |
|
London |
This matter is being dealt with by : |
NW8 8EA |
Email: [Westminster City Council request email] |
|
|
Tel No: 0207 641 |
|
Fax No: 0207 641 2872 |
|
|
To Graham
E: [FOI #16677 email] |
Date: 9th October 2009 |
|
|
|
|
Dear Graham
Re: Request for Internal Review - Request 4221
Thank you for your dated 25th September 2009 regarding the response to your recent request to the Council (our ref: 4221).
In your you asked for an internal review of the handling of your Request. I have summarised the details of your appeal below:
You had not received a response to a follow up email
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
The Council received your original request on the 10th August 2009 and responded on the 25th August 2009. You then sent a follow up email to the Council on the 26th August 2009 asking for clarification on a number of items. You sent a further email on the 27th August asking an additional question. The Council responded on the 4th September 2009 to answer the email of the 27th August. You sent an email on the 25th September asking for an internal review, citing your grounds that you had not received a response to the questions raised in your email of the 26th August.
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:
Section 1(4) requires that the information to be communicated must be the information in question held at the time when the request is received, except for any amendment or deletion that would have been made regardless of the receipt of the request. A public authority is, therefore, not required to create new information nor give an opinion or judgement that is not already recorded.
Section 56 of the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice on the Discharge of Public Authorities' Functions under Part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, recommends that public authorities have a complaints procedure for dealing with handling problems and reviewing decisions taken pursuant to the FOI Act.
The queries that you have raised as grounds for your complaint do not relate to the handling of your request, nor to any decisions made in applying the FOI Act, therefore we are unable to undertake an internal review.
In the spirit of which the act was written, however, I will endeavour to clarify our original responses to you. I will address your queries below, using your numbering:
You say "The rationality for Westminster City Council (WCC) not specifically outlining individual parking spaces with in the bay is that they are attempting to maximise the use of the area to address the demands for motorcycle parking" So, are you saying that there is no demand for motorcycle parking in Westminster car parks (since the bays are marked out as individual bays)?
In the response of "The rationality for Westminster City Council (WCC) not specifically outlining individual parking spaces with in the bay is that they are attempting to maximise the use of the area to address the demands for motorcycle parking", the Council is specifically referring to that area, and does not mention the reasons for other car parks being marked with individual bays.
Are you also saying that profits from maximised motorcycle parking, are more important than the security of the fee payers motorcycle?
This has not been mentioned, nor referred to, in our response.
How does the council justify “maximising parking” at the expense of motorcycle damage while still charging motorcycles to park when the council stated that funds raised from motorcycle parking would be used for security?
This is an additional question to those raised in your original request, and therefore would need to be logged as a new request. If you wish this to be logged, then you will need you to clarify what information is being sought here, as the Council is obliged under section 1(4) to provide information which is held at the time of the request, and not provide opinion. Guidance on how to structure a request can be found in the Freedom of Information document library on the Information Commissioner's Website (see link below).
Why does WCC feel that for motorcyclists “it is ultimately the motorists' reasonability to ensure the park safely and correctly” and yet car drivers cannot be relied upon in this way and so need separate parking bays?
Our response referred to "motorists", and did not differentiate between motorcyclists and car drivers.
Given that “it is ultimately the motorists' reasonability to ensure the park safely and correctly” why do WCC only think this will work with motorcyclists, who WCC describe as “bullies” and “thugs”?"
Please see the response to #4 above.
Yours sincerely,
4
3
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