Consultation with BMF

Dear Sir or Madam,

In response to FOI 4225, you advise that you consulted the British
Motorcyclist Federation (BMF) with regards to the motorcycle
parking. You also provide a web link to your website to prove this.
Unfortunately, as your website is neither unbiased or independent,
and is generally full of inaccurate or mis-calculated facts and
figures, i question the authenticity of the records you hold.

The BMF have stated in a letter sent to all Westminster Councillors
"We were particularly aggrieved by the fact that we were
not given an opportunity to present our case to the councillors
before you
made a policy decision on the issue based on false information. We
have now
witnessed Councillor Chalkley, on numerous occasions, stating that
both
MAG and BMF had been consulted on this point and thus inferring
that we
were in tacit agreement. I think you will find that we are clearly
not, as
evidenced by our strong support for the No To Bike Parking Fees
Campaign,
our historic campaigns against motorcycle parking charges and this
letter."

So judging by that letter, either Westminster City Council are
lying or the BMF are lying.

To put my mind at rest, please provide all correspondence between
Westminster City Council and the BMF with regards to motorcycle
parking. This should include emails and letters where
applicable/appropriate. It may be wise of you to also provide any
minutes of any meetings you have held with them with regards to
motorcycle charging.

Please also explain to me why the BMF are said to have been
consulted in the recently published Cabinet Member Report when they
have CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY stated to ALL Westminster City
Councillors that they were not.

As this is a matter which directly affects the councils integrity
(which from previous FOI's i note that you are keen to protect) i
would expect a prompt response.

Yours faithfully,

Ben Tweedy

Dear Tanya

You know that is a lie and i am shocked by how poor your excuses
for not answering FOI requests have become. Inventive, i'll admit
but poor nonetheless.

I have not submitted 10 requests asking for the same or similar
information. If you can prove i have i will happily pay your fee,
but to save your time i can confirm now that i have not. If you do
not answer the original request or provide proof of my so called 10
requests BY THE END OF TODAY, i will forward this on to the ICO.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Tweedy

Dear Tanya

As a further thought, perhaps you could enlighten me as to when
this 60 days will be up. If you can prove that i've sent 10 request
asking for the same or similar information (which you cant because
i haven't) then i'll wait until the 60 days is up and just
re-submit the request.

Yours faithfully,

Ben Tweedy

Dear FOI,

This request is overdue a response. By law, you should have
answered by 4th November 2009. Please answer by the end of play
today or I will not hesitate in reporting you and forwarding our
whole correspondence to the ICO. Please note that I am NOT asking
for an internal review, i am asking you to abide by the law and
answer the question.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Tweedy

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am requesting a review of the handling of this FOI request. My
original request was rejected, yet my follow ups for explanation
have been ignored.

You have claimed that i have sent 10 requests for the same or
similar information yet have failed to provide evidence of this.
You have thus far also ignored my request as to when the 60 days
began and ended. Please reply at your earliest as this request is
now months overdue.

Yours faithfully,

4

2