Sustainable Regeneration Directorate

Business Development & Partnerships Division

Salford City Council,

Civic Centre

Chorley Road, Swinton, Salford M27 5BY

Mr Morris

[email address]

Phone

Fax

Email

Web

My Ref

Your Ref

0161 793 2878

0161 793 2477

[email address]

www.salford.gov.uk

FOI/LBF/Morris/110809

Date 30 October 2009

Subject: Freedom of Information Request Response

Dear Mr Morris

Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 11th August 2009. Our partners Urban Vision Partnership Ltd have provided the information for your response. Your request has been processed under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Our response is as follows: -

1.) Any recorded guidance issued by the Council to CEOs regarding the issuing of PCNs when signs are obscured, damaged, or misaligned? I can advise you that, following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the City Council or our partners Urban Vision Partnership Limited do not issue any guidance regarding this request.

2.) Any recorded guidance issued by the Council to CEOs regarding the issuing of PCNs when lines faded and/or broken? I can advise you that, following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the City Council or our partners Urban Vision Partnership Limited do not issue any guidance regarding this request.

3.) Any communication held by this Council regarding reports/ checking made by NSL Services Groups Civil Enforcement Officers about defective traffic signs and road markings. This includes signs that are obscured, damaged, or deliberately `spun round', and broken or faded road markings? The Contractor is required to report on certain defects in the general highway infrastructure which includes street furniture in relation to parking including signs, lines and posts and this has been communicated to them in section 11.2.15 and 11.2.26 of the tender specification (attached).

4.) The dates which the Council (even if through its contractor Urban Vision) undertook remedial work to correct the misalignment, damage and obscurity of traffic signs, and also of faded and/or broken lines? We are unable to provide the misalignment, damage and obscurity of traffic signs information as our records do not indicate this category, also you have not indicated a timeframe. As the costs to locate, extract and retrieve will exceed the Freedom of Information disbursement limits the council is not obliged to respond to requests for information where it estimates that the costs of complying with the request exceeds £450 (@£25 per hour).

With regards to broken or faded lines maintenance to carriageway lining is carried out on a cyclical basis on a 5-year rolling programme. This equates to us carrying out extensive lining maintenance to 4 wards each year. To give some idea of scheduling I have summarised the areas addressed in the last 4 years. The extent of the lining carried out is determined by available budget allocation determined year on year.

2009/10 - Kersal / Pendleton / Broughton / Blackfriars (ongoing)

2008/09 - Weaste and Seedley / Langworthy / Ordsall

2007/08 - Eccles / Winton / Barton / Irlam / Cadishead

2006/07 - Swinton North / Swinton South / Pendlebury / Claremont

2005/06 - Little Hulton / Walkden North / Walkden South / Worsley and Boothstown

5.) A copy of any contracts, indices and appendices between the council and NSL Services Group together with the monetary amounts of these contracts? This request has been carefully considered however the council and our partner Urban Vision Limited are not able to give you all the information due to an exemption from disclosure. A copy of the contract between Salford City Council and NCP Services (now NSL Services Group) in respect of Decriminalised/Civil Parking Enforcement is attached. I have set out the exemption below.

Section 43(2) FOIA 2000 Commercial Interest - This section states that “information held by a public authority is exempt information if its disclosure under (the Act) would, or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it)”

Certain aspects of the contract document relating to schedules of rates and pricing structures, have been removed as they are considered by NSL Limited to be commercially sensitive. It is believed that publication of this information would put competitors tendering for any future contracts at an unfair advantage by providing an insight into how the company structure their prices.

Under the Act, section 43(2) is a qualified exemption. This means that even if the information falls within an exemption, a public authority is under a duty to consider whether disclosure should nevertheless be made in the public interest. The public interest test is considered below:

When balancing the public interest test I have to consider whether the information should be released into the public domain. Arguments need to be weighed against each other.

In this case the right of the public to know and to be informed needs to be weighed against the damage that could be caused to the third parties involved, both operationally and commercially, and to the Authority itself. As a public authority we are accountable to the public but on balance I believe the release of information would not be in the public interest. The accountability for use of public funds is a powerful argument. However, this is offset by the fact that the Authority is already subject to a financial audit and is therefore already held accountable for the money its spends. This process will not be enhanced by a disclosure under FOIA.

For these reasons, it is my decision that in this case the public interest test favours non disclosure of the information refused under section 43(2) commercial interest.

6.) Any information (included emails) about the KPI's given to NSL Services Group in which the Council assess the performance of NSL Services Group CEOs, more specifically the ELA (Estimate Level of Achievement), e.g. How it calculates how many PCN should a CEO get when patrolling certain areas? Information relating to performance monitoring is included at section 15 of the contract specification (attached). No instruction is given in respect of Estimated Level of Achievement other than general information given to all tenderer's for the contract to base their submissions on an estimated PCN issue rate of 35000 per year. (section 4 of the contract specification.

7.) I also would like to request the information listed below:

7a. Contract Costs with CPS (previous to the contract to NSL Services, from 2004 until the end of its contract with Salford City Council, broken by year? 04/05 £843792.85 + VAT 05/06 £902744.46 + VAT 06/07 £873472.62 + VAT

7b. Contract Costs with NSL Services Group (former NCP Services) since the beginning of the contracted time to date, broken by year? 07/08 £639170.88 +VAT 08/09 £731802.90 +VAT

09/10 £253280.30 +VAT

7c. The costs of implementation of new signposts and road markings, from 2004 to date, broken by year? The cost of new signposting and road marking is largely funded via Capital accounts. A summary of expenditure is given below. 2009/10 figures are based on expenditure to date.

Signing(£)

Lining(£)

2009/10

33,681

7,784

2008/09

14,935

4,978

2007/08

19,272

8,259

2006/07

30,252

12,965

2005/06

No information

No information

7d. The total expenditure in Replacement signposts and road markings from 2004 to date, broken by year? The cost of replacement signposting and road marking is largely funded via Revenue accounts. A summary of expenditure is given below. 2009/10 figures are based on expenditure to date.

Signing(£)

Lining(£)

2009/10

9,654

23,354

2008/09

12,828

66,042

2007/08

15,456

65,361

2006/07

58,718

33,699

2005/06

73,458

96,669

7e. The costs of installation of Ticket Issue Machines from 2004 to date, broken by year?

2004/05 £ 565

2005/06 £ Nil

2006/07 £ 310

2007/08 £ 479

2008/09 £ 264

2009/10 £ 539

7f. The costs of maintenance of Ticket Issue Machines, from 2004 to date, broken by year?

2004/05 £ 25,860

2005/06 £ 29,424

2006/07 £ 29,772

2007/08 £ 31,091

2008/09 £ 30,677

2009/10 £ 15,958

Figures for 2004/05 to 2008/09 inclusive relate to the council year.

Figures for 2009/10 relate to the council year to date.

Maintenance costs include Bureau Service & Insurance in respect of Parkeon machines.

7g. The income from Penalty Charge Notices from 2004 to date, broken by year? Please see table below

7h. The income from Pay and Display tickets from 2004 to date, broken by year?

Car Parking Income

Year

Pay and

Penalty

Display

Charge Notices

2004/05

330,682.67

860,198.72

2005/06

406,148.33

901,228.80

2006/07

394,059.70

911,980.44

2007/08

406,170.55

797,339.77

2008/09

466,111.26

875,762.41

2009/10

193,749.78

434,866.05

(to Aug)

7i. The income from Residential Parking permits from 2004 to date, broken by year?

2004 £33425

2005 £20275

2006 £20275

2007 £20275

2008 £20775

All figures provided above relate to the respective financial years i.e.April to March except question 7i, which is based on the calendar year i.e. January to December.

I have now fully considered the council's handing of your request and am able to confirm the following:

The Freedom of Information Act 2000(The Act), requires that a public authority must inform an applicant in writing whether it holds the information requested and if so, communicate that information to the applicant promptly, but not later than 20 working days after receipt of the request; in accordance with section 10(1). Accordingly the council should have responded to your request by 10 September 2009 (taking into account that 31 August bank holiday, is not a working day for the purposes of The Act).

I have carried out a full investigation of the delay and can confirm that due to staff resource issues the council was unable to respond to your request. Regrettably, the council did not fullfil its responsibilities under Section 10(1) of The Act, as the response is 40 working days late.

The council understands and takes seriously its obligations under The Act and will continue to look at its processes, in order to meet those obligations. I am sure you will agree, having received the requested information, that it would not have served the council to purposely delay this disclosure.

Please accept my apologies in respect of the delay and be assured that we are looking at ways to meet with the increasing numbers of requests made under The Act.

I trust this explains the reason for the delay however, as the review has concluded should you remain dissatisfied, you may take the matter up with the Information Commissioner's Office details below.

Office of the Information Commissioner

Wycliffe House

Water Lane, Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Tel: 01625 545700

Fax: 01625 524510

Yours sincerely

Rob Pickering

Assistant Director Business and Economic Futures