Any letters/e-mails of support to the motorcycle parking charge?

Dear Sir or Madam,

Could you please advise how many letters and e-mails of support, if
any, Westminster City Council received with regards to the recently
introduced motorcycle parking charge as at 31st March 2009 and
during the month of April 2009.

Also, among any of those letters and e-mails, please provide a
breakdown between those received from:-

Westminster residents or resident associations
Westminster based organisations/retailers/companies
Non Westminster residents
Non Westminster based organisations/retailers/companies

Yours faithfully,

Mr Thomas

Thank you for your response to the recent FOI request number 3808.

When you say that you do not have the information to answer the FOI
request, can you please confirm that this is the case for BOTH
parts of the FOI request, i.e. the number of e-mails and letters of
support to the motorcycle parking charge received by the council as
at 31st March 2009 and during the month of April 2009 AND a
breakdown between Westminster residents and non-residents of the
number of letters and e-mails received during both periods.

If you have the records to at least advise (without a breakdown)
the number of e-mails and letters received by the council in
support of the motorcycle parking charge as at 31st March 2009
and/or during the month of April 2009, please do so or else, advise
why records have not been maintained.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Thomas

Dear Sir or Madam,

When can I expect to receive a reply to my follow-up question to
FOI number 3808 "Any letters/e-mails of support to the motorcycle
parking charge"?

A follow-up response is now overdue, please respond at your
earliest convenience.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Thomas

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Westminster City
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Any letters/e-mails of
support to the motorcycle parking charge?'.

My follow-up question sent on 21st May 2009 remains unanswered
despite the reminder I sent you on 24th June 2009. I give you
another 7 working days to answer the question after which I will
forward the case to the Information Commissioner's Office for
investigation.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/an...

Yours faithfully,

Mr Thomas

Dear Sir or Madam,

This request was put in on 19th May 2009. I subsequently requested
an internal review of the way this FOI has been handled and am
still waiting for an answer. Please treat this message as a request
for you to investigate the way this FOI has been handled under
stage 1 of the Council's complaint procedures.

The Council is in breach of Freedom of Information Act 2000 for not
having replied within the 20 working days allowed. Please note that
I now intend to forward the details of this FOI on to the
Information Commissionner for investigation, your delay in replying
being totally unacceptable. I urge you to reply at your earliest
opportunity, given that I understand from your response to FOI
number 3933 (submitted by someone else but for which the details
are publicly made available), that the Council has recently
recruited additional staff to deal with FOI requests. Any further
delay is unacceptable and I am prepared to contact the Information
Commissioner to obtain a response from you, should I not receive
one within 5 working days.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Thomas

Dear Mr Deas,

A typical response of Westminster City Council. When you don't want
to divulge some information, you say that the Council does not hold
the information required.

I am absolutely baffled by the fact that the Council does not
categorise emails and letters received from the public, which is
another example of Westminster not taking care of and listening to
the opinion and views of the public. By not categorising these
emails and letters, it clearly shows that they have not been read
and taken into consideration by the Council.

This is totally unacceptable.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Thomas