Dialogue with major motorcycle groups

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have downloaded the motorcycle report dated 1st October 2009 from
your website
(http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/newcsu/Ca...(FINAL).doc)
and have the following question regarding the consultation that was
undertaken prior to introducing the motorcycle charging scheme.

In paragraph 4.6.2 on page 7, it says the following:-

"The July 2008 decision to introduce motorcycle parking charges was
made after dialogue with major motorcycle groups; Motorcycle Action
Group (MAG), British Motorcyclists Federations (BMF) and Motorcycle
Parking".

Please can you advise how the Council made a decision to introduce
parking charges for motorbikes and scooters after dialogue with the
three above organisations, when each specifically advised that they
were opposed to charging for motorcycle parking.

In case you dispute this, as Mr Fitsall seems to have done in his
report, I include below the link to the joint letter sent to all
Westminster Councillors by the BMF and MAG to say that they had not
been consulted on the issue and that they remain opposed to
charging for motorcycle parking. I also include below the link to
the statement made by motorcycleparking.com, which clearly
indicates that the consultation process was very limited and that
they also remain opposed to charging for motorcycle parking.

http://www.notobikeparkingfees.com/wp-co...

http://www.motorcycleparking.com/westmin...

I look forward to receiving your response.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs Brown

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your response.

Let me reword my request so that it may now comply with your
interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Please provide copies of ALL correspondence (emails, letters etc),
minutes of meetings and "dialogue" (to use the term mentioned in Mr
Fitsall's latest motorcycle report) with EACH of the major
motorcycle groups.

Basically, I am asking for back-up documentation held by the
council that can justify the statement made by Mr Fitsall in his
latest motorcycle report: "The July 2008 decision to introduce
motorcycle parking charges was made after dialogue with major
motorcycle groups".

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Brown

Dear Ms Holden,

Thank you for your response.

I am very sorry but I do not accept your explanation for not
processing my FOI requests.

The FOI requests you are referring to in your response are as
follows:-

FOI 4455 - Security Devices for motorcycles
FOI 4453 - Parking cards usage
FOI 4456 - Verrus parking pay by phone uptime
FOI 4474 - Tender process re pay by phone system
FOI 4526 - Dialogue with major motorcycle groups

As you must be very well aware, the FOI Act 2000, section 5 (2)
allows a public authority to aggregate the cost of providing the
information requested through multiple FOIs submitted by the same
person, as long as the FOIs in question "relate, to any extent, to
the same or similar information".

I am very sorry to say that I can't see how the above FOIs relate
to the same or similar information.

FOI 4455 is about security devices for motorcycles, please let me
know which one of the other 4 FOIs relate to security devices for
motorcycles.

FOI 4453 is about parking cards, please let me know which one of
the other 4 FOIs relate to parking cards.

FOI 4456 is about the Verrus pay by phone system uptime that is
mentioned in the latest motorcycle report. Mr Fitsall seems to
quote a number in his report and all I am asking for is supporting
documentation for the data quoted by Mr Fitsall. How is this
related to any of my other FOIs?

FOI 4474 is about the tender process re the Verrus pay by phone
system. How has this to do with parking cards, system uptime,
security devices and dialogue with motorcycle groups (see below)?

FOI 4526 is about the dialogue that the City Council has been
having with major motorcycle groups, as stated in Mr Fitsall's
latest motorcycle report. Has this got anything to do with security
devices, Verrus and parking cards?

I consider your response as quite vexatious to be honest, as it is
unacceptable to incorrectly use the regulations set out within the
FOI Act 2000 in an attempt to try and avoid answering requests from
the public.

Therefore, would you please answer each of my FOI requests as, I
repeat, they do not relate to the same or similar information, as
defined in section 5 (2) of the FOI Act 2000.

If you continue to refuse to reply to my FOI requests, I may raise
an official complaint to the Information Commissioner AND District
Auditor for what, I believe, is a mis-use of the FOI Act 2000 on
your part, in an attempt to avoid answering FOI requests and
failing to make information available to members of the public that
they are entirely entitled to see.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Brown

Dear Tanya,

Following my note of yesterday, I would also like to add that I
have not submitted 10 requests in the last 60 days. I have
submitted less than that, so please get your facts right before
coming up with false excuses to avoid answering FOIs and reduce
your workload.

This is another thing I will mention to the ICO and District
Auditor should you continue to refuse to answer my FOI requests.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs Brown

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please would you reply to my emails dated 29th and 30th October
2009 with regards to the above FOI.

It is not appropriate to aggregate my FOIs as they are not related,
and also I have NOT submitted 10 requests in the last 60 days, so
please reply at your earliest convenience.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs Brown

Dear Ms Preston,

Now that the time limit for aggregating my FOIs has passed (it was
14th December 2009 per your internal review response), please would
you answer the question set in this FOI. If you still refuse to
answer, please provide an explanation for your refusal quoting and
referring to the FOI Act 2000.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Brown