Changes to dedicated on-street motorcycle parking provision

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please can you advise the dates (or date periods) when the total
number** of Westminster City Council's dedicated ON-STREET
motorcycle parking spaces (NOT the number of bays) in Westminster
has CHANGED (increased or decreased) by at least 10 spaces, from
January 2001, to now.

**By the total number, I mean the total number of spaces provided
(irrespective of whether spaces are temporarily suspended) - i.e.
identify dates or periods of dates where the provision of the
number of motorcycle spaces was specifically changed (increased or
decreased), e.g. by new bays being added, bays being removed,
significant increases or reductions in the sizes of bays, method of
calculating the number of spaces was changed, etc.

So, if *for example*, the total provision of SPACES changed during
February 2002, from 4,600 to 4,700, whilst over April 2003 and May
it reduced from 4,700 to 4,500, then I would be looking for
information that would include ..

In February 2002, provision increased from 4,600 to 4,700.
In April 2003 to May 2003, provision decreased from 4,700 to 4,500.

Many thanks.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Johnson (Westminster Resident)

Dear Customer Relations,

In your reply, you indicate that the information requested, "in
accordance with parameters that you have specified" is "not held"
(for the purpose of FOI). Could you kindly clarify whether it is
the "parameters" I have specified that gives rise to this reply,
and could you advise the data that you DO hold that would be of
relevance (or part relevance) to my request, so that I may adjust
my request accordingly.

I would be happy to adjust the FOI, to merely request the dates of
CHANGES of more than 10 spaces (without the TOTAL number of spaces
being specified), i.e. removing my "example", if this does fall
within the data that is "held".

You have also kindly supplied a link (I added "foi/") to get a page
which showed the CURRENT number of motorcycle spaces, but I have to
advise that I believe that the information is incorrect (out of
date), as of 1st September 2009, when Cramer Street and Leicester
Square Car Parks stopped being Council car parks, and therefore the
total motorcycle car park spaces still shown as 1,053 is no longer
correct.

You kindly pointed to towards another FOI (4121) which asked
'similar' information, but I note that in the response to that FOI,
this similar information was not deemed to be "not held", albeit a
charge would need to be applied due to the work involved of going
through manually held TMOs. This is why I have asked (above) for
clarification on why the data for my FOI is "not held" when the
same data would appear to be available for FOI/4121 ?

At the end of the reply, for the "request number" (and also for the
e-mail of Customer Relations), it shows "dummy" e-mail address?
Were these meant to be something different?

Finally, my FOI reply document is entitled
<<FOI4477 Johnson proper kr1.doc>> !
Please can you advise why the word "proper" is included in the
title?

Yours sincerely,

Martin J

Dear Customer Relations,

I note that it is now two weeks on from my request, on 4th
November, with queries relating to the reply to my original FOI
request, with no response from the officer dealing with the
request, as yet!

Please could you chase up for an acknowledgement from the officer
dealing with the request, and/or a target response date for such a
response.

Many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Martin J

Dear Customer Relations,

It has now been over 20 working days since my follow-up queries on
the response to this FOI. You said I would be advised of the
findings in "due course". How long is allowed for "due course"?
When will I get a reply to my follow-up questions, especially
bearing in mind that the FOI reply given seems to be at odds with
the reply to another FOI?

Yours sincerely,

Martin J

Dear FOI,

Many thanks for your update, and information relating to my
request.

Only a small point, but I never specifically asked for an "Internal
Review"; rather I tried to clarify / adjust my request to match
information that is held, and also advised that I though the
original reply was flawed.

As it happens, given that you deemed my "complaint" to be
"partially upheld", perhaps that was the correct approach!

Once again, my thanks for providing the information that you did.

Yours sincerely,

Martin J