Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There are 3 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Motorcycle Security Devices
To Westminster City Council by Ben Tweedy 4 December 2009
Security devices for on-street motorcycle parking
To Westminster City Council by J Smith 16 September 2009
Expected motorcycle security
To Westminster City Council by Constance Pope Osborne 11 September 2009
on-street survey motocycle parking survey
To Westminster City Council by Lucy Adams 16 April 2009
Surveys and actions taken from them
To Westminster City Council by Samantha Wade 23 May 2009
Motorcycle Security Devices
To Westminster City Council by Ben Tweedy 23 April 2010
motorcycle parking locations
To Westminster City Council by Mr Creed 27 August 2009
Security Devices
To Westminster City Council by Ben Tweedy 25 September 2009
The Cost of the Bike Tax
To Westminster City Council by Ashley Martin 2 July 2009
Income generated by the motorcycle parking tax
To Westminster City Council by M Laurent 10 September 2009
Motorcycle security devices recently purchased
J Smith made this Freedom of Information request to Westminster City Council
Westminster City Council did not have the information requested.
From: J Smith
24 December 2009
Dear Westminster City Council,
I would like to receive the following information:-
A/ a copy of the invoice addressed to the City Council for the
purchase of the 200 new security devices referred to in Mr
Fitsall's report dated 1st October 2009.
B/ copies of all correspondence covering any consultation
undertaken PRIOR TO purchasing those 200 new security devices and
SPECIFICALLY related to those 200 new security devices.
Yours faithfully,
J Smith
Westminster City Council
29 December 2009
Confirmation of Freedom Of Information Request
Thank you for your request for information.
Your request details have now been recorded and will be passed on to the
appropriate Divisional Records Officer for action.
This Freedom Of Information Request was based on the following
information:
Name: J Smith
Address: see email address
Email: [FOI #25113 email]
Telephone:
Request Details: A/ a copy of the invoice addressed to the City Council
for the purchase of the 200 new security devices referred to in Mr
Fitsall's report dated 1st October 2009.
B/ copies of all correspondence covering any consultation undertaken PRIOR
TO purchasing those 200 new security devices and SPECIFICALLY related to
those 200 new security devices.
FOI Reference Number: 4778
Target Completion Date: 26/01/2010
Please do not reply to this email.
This is an automatic response to your request, and replies to this message
will not be actioned.
If you need to contact Westminster City Council regarding your request,
please contact:
mailto:[Westminster City Council request email]
Tel:020 7641 3921
show quoted sections
From: Customer Relations
Westminster City Council
14 January 2010
Dear J Smith,
Please find enclosed a response to your recent FOI request.
Yours sincerely
Gordon Deas
Departmental Records Officer
Parking Services
<<FOI4778Smith.doc>>
show quoted sections
From: J Smith
14 January 2010
Dear Customer Relations,
Since you cannot provide a copy of the invoice at this stage,
please would you provide a copy of the contract, purchase order or
purchase agreement that the council has with the supplier.
I am absolutely chocked that no consultation was carried out prior
to purchasing these 200 motorcycle security devices. If you had
consulted the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea for instance,
you would have found out that the model of device that you have
purchased is not popular at all with motorcyclists, since Chelsea
use the same model for their resident motorcyclists and take-up is
extremely low. I wonder what the Partnerships in Parking scheme is
for, since both Westminster and Chelsea are members of PiP, and yet
there has been no consultation or dialogue undertaken between the
two councils.
It sounds like Councillor Chalkley has wasted another circa £41,000
of taxpayers' money, and that doesn't include installation costs.
Perhaps you want to undertake some consultation to ascertain the
non-popularity of these devices before having them installed and
waste some more taxpayers' money. It might not be too late to
return the devices to the supplier and get a full refund.
Taxpayers expect Westminster Council to use their money wisely.
Yours sincerely,
J Smith
From: Customer Relations
Westminster City Council
21 January 2010
Dear J Smith,
Thank you for your e-mail dated 14 January 2010.
Your additional request for information (copy of the contract, purchase order or purchase agreement) will be considered in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You will shortly receive notification that this new request has been logged. I will aim to provide a copy of the documents you have requested within the 20 working day timeframe.
Regarding your additional comments, I have passed these onto our Motorcycle Parking Team, who will respond to you separately under the reference MC/23420.
Yours sincerely
Gordon Deas
Departmental Records Officer
Parking Services
show quoted sections
Westminster City Council
21 January 2010
Confirmation of Freedom Of Information Request
Thank you for your request for information.
Your request details have now been recorded and will be passed on to the
appropriate Divisional Records Officer for action.
This Freedom Of Information Request was based on the following
information:
Name: J Smith
Address: (E-mail address)
Email: [FOI #25113 email]
Telephone:
Request Details: In relation to Freedom of Information request 4778.
A copy of the contract, purchase order or purchase agreement that
Westminster City Council has in relation to the recently purchased 200
security devices for motorcycles.
FOI Reference Number: 4873
Target Completion Date: 11/02/2010
Please do not reply to this email.
This is an automatic response to your request, and replies to this message
will not be actioned.
If you need to contact Westminster City Council regarding your request,
please contact:
mailto:[Westminster City Council request email]
Tel:020 7641 3921
show quoted sections
From: Customer Relations
Westminster City Council
25 January 2010
Please find attached response to your letter.
<<mc23420 Smith dw (security devices).doc>>
Please do not respond to this e-mail as it may not reach the intended
recipient through the company filters, please respond to:
[email address]
<[1]mailto:[email address]>
[2]ole1.bmp
David Whyte
Customer Relations Officer
[email address]
Amanda Macphee
Customer Relations Manager
Leah Smith
Section Manager
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
From: J Smith
25 January 2010
Dear Customer Relations,
Thank you for your reply. Please note that I am still waiting to
receive a copy of the contract, purchase order or purchase
agreement that the council has with the supplier, with regards to
the recently purchased 200 security devices. Please provide this at
your earliest convenience.
Your response today includes the following sentence:-
"(...) if the motorcycle-parking scheme becomes permanent, WCC will
be looking to install further devices where it is practical and
appropriate to do so".
Please can you clarify the wording "if the motorcycle parking
scheme becomes permanent", as I thought the decision had already
been made with regards to the permanence the bike parking tax. Has
Cllr Chalkley changed his mind or perhaps is he finally considering
scrapping this ridiculous and unwanted stealth tax?
Yours sincerely,
J Smith
From: Customer Relations
Westminster City Council
26 January 2010
No AttachName.bmp
0K
Download
FOI4873 Smith.security dw.doc
31K
Download
View as HTML
BriefInstructions 1.TIF.tif
63K
Download
View as HTML
Please find attached response to your letter.
<<FOI4873 Smith.security dw.doc>> <<BriefInstructions[1].TIF>>
Please do not respond to this e-mail as it may not reach the intended
recipient through the company filters, please respond to:
[email address]
<[1]mailto:[email address]>
[2]ole2.bmp
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
From: J Smith
26 January 2010
Dear Customer Relations,
Thank you for your further response. I can see from the screen shot
that the price is £0, so please can you explain on what basis you
advised in your response dated 14 January 2010 that the cost per
anchor was £207.35, excluding installation. Surely, you have
evidence of this cost somewhere, please can I have a copy.
I am also awaiting clarification of your statement "if the
motorcycle-parking scheme becomes permanent" in your response dated
25 January 2010.
Yours sincerely,
J Smith
Ben Tweedy left an annotation (26 January 2010)
Good follow up! I was going to mention that when they responded to my FOI, they said that installation wasn't included, now it is and at a cost of £0!!
Also, i would ask what the point of PiP (Partnerships in Parking) as Kensington and Chelsea used these ground anchors in the past and said they weren't very good, and they also paid less. I thought PiP was there to save THE TAXPAYERS money but it seems not....
Ben Tweedy left an annotation (26 January 2010)
They also failed to answer your question....."Please can you clarify the wording "if the motorcycle parking
scheme becomes permanent", as I thought the decision had already
been made with regards to the permanence the bike parking tax. Has
Cllr Chalkley changed his mind or perhaps is he finally considering
scrapping this ridiculous and unwanted stealth tax?"
From: Customer Relations
Westminster City Council
28 January 2010
Please find attached response to your letter.
<<mc23420A Smith dw (security devices).doc>>
Please do not respond to this e-mail as it may not reach the intended
recipient through the company filters, please respond to:
[email address]
<[1]mailto:[email address]>
[2]ole1.bmp
David Whyte
Customer Relations Officer
[email address]
Amanda Macphee
Customer Relations Manager
Leah Smith
Section Manager
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Ben Tweedy left an annotation (28 January 2010)
Funny how they choose what to and what not to answer. they completely ignored this question...
"I can see from the screen shot
that the price is £0, so please can you explain on what basis you
advised in your response dated 14 January 2010 that the cost per
anchor was £207.35, excluding installation. Surely, you have
evidence of this cost somewhere, please can I have a copy."
From: J Smith
28 January 2010
Dear Customer Relations,
Thank you for your response of today. You have still failed to
provide the information I requested on 26th January 2010, which is
as follows:-
"I can see from the screen shot that the price is £0, so please can
you explain on what basis you advised in your response dated 14
January 2010 that the cost per anchor was £207.35, excluding
installation. Surely, you have evidence of this cost somewhere,
please can I have a copy".
Please can you provide me with the above information as soon as
possible.
Yours sincerely,
J Smith
From: Customer Relations
Westminster City Council
1 February 2010
Dear Sir or Madam
Regarding your request for the cost of the security anchors, this has been
submitted as a Freedom Of Information request (FOI) and is currently being
dealt with. A response to this request will be sent to you shortly.
[1]ole0.bmp
Customer Relations
[email address]
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
Westminster City Council
1 February 2010
Confirmation of Freedom Of Information Request
Thank you for your request for information.
Your request details have now been recorded and will be passed on to the
appropriate Divisional Records Officer for action.
This Freedom Of Information Request was based on the following
information:
Name: J Smith
Address: [FOI #25113 email]
Email: [FOI #25113 email]
Telephone:
Request Details: Re: FOI4873A VTX 498
Thank you for your further response. I can see from the screen shot
that the price is £0, so please can you explain on what basis you advised
in your response dated 14 January 2010 that cost per anchor was £207.35,
excluding installation. Surely, you have evidence of this cost somewhere,
please can I have a copy.
I am also awaiting clarification of your statement "if the motorcycle
parking scheme becomes permanent" in your response datred 25 January 2010.
FOI Reference Number: 4927
Target Completion Date: 23/02/2010
Please do not reply to this email.
This is an automatic response to your request, and replies to this message
will not be actioned.
If you need to contact Westminster City Council regarding your request,
please contact:
mailto:[Westminster City Council request email]
Tel:020 7641 3921
show quoted sections
From: Customer Relations
Westminster City Council
19 February 2010
Please find attached response to your letter.
<<FOI4873A Smith.security dw.doc>>
Please do not respond to this e-mail as it may not reach the intended
recipient through the company filters, please respond to:
[email address]
<[1]mailto:[email address]>
[2]ole1.bmp
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
From: J Smith
19 February 2010
Dear Customer Relations,
Thanks for your response today.
So I take it as you are unable to substantiate the cost of £207.35
per anchor for the new security devices. I also take it as the
price of the said security devices was not the subject of any
communication between Westminster Council and the supplier
(Murphy's). So, in other words, if Murphy's decide to amend the
price of their anchors by the end of the financial year, when an
invoice is expected to be received per your latest response, I
suppose they can charge the new price, since you have not got any
written supporting documentation to justify the price of £207.35
per anchor that you seem to have verbally agreed with them. This
surely reflects the way taxpayers expect Westminster Council to
spend their money, i.e. blindly spend it without justification and
being able to formally substantiate it. You should be thankful that
you work in the public sector as you wouldn't last long with this
type of response in the private sector, where every penny counts.
Yours sincerely,
J Smith
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Blue left an annotation (25 January 2010)
Can they clarify that statement, as Councillor Chalkley did say that he had made the scheme permanent already.
Given the Councils different understanding of common english words, does the council have a different interpretation for the word permanent?
Link to this