Projected expenditure for motorcycle bay signage

Dear Sir or Madam,

In the 1 October 2009 Cabinet Member Report authored by Mr Kieran
Fitsall, Policy and Compliance Manager, he provides a table in
section 5.3 of the councils budget position for 2009/10. In that
table Mr Fitsall has given a projected expenditure of £200 K full
year vandalism costs.
He references that table in section 4.7.1 in answer as to why the
motorcycle parking is not revenue neutral by saying:

“certain projected costs are proving to be higher than the stated
budgetary position. For example, an increase in the vandalism of
motorcycle bay signage has resulted in a significant increase in
signs and lines expenditure.”

However in FOI request 4247
(http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pa...)
the council say:

"the breakdown of the costs in replacing all damaged Pay By Phone
parking signs for Westminster's motorcycle on street parking bays
from August 2008 until the end of July 2009? (Including the costs
for signs which have been replaced and those which have required
cleaning)", I can confirm that the Council does not hold
information on the breakdown of the costs of replacing and/or
cleaning the specified signs.”

1) I request all finical evidence that Mr Fitsall used to calculate
his estimate for the projected £200 K expenditure?

2)Any other documentary evidence which he has based his assumption
on?

3)Please also provide details based on the above two questions of
how exactly Mr Fitsall arrived at the figure of £200K for
vandalised signage?

I am presuming that Mr Fitsall did not just pluck this figure out
of thin air.

Yours faithfully,

Blue

Dear Tanya,

As you may know that in the Secretary of State for Constitutional
Affairs' Code of Practice on the discharge of public authorities'
functions under
Part I of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, The provision of
advice and assistance to persons making requests for information,
Section 14 it states
“Where an authority is not obliged to comply with a request for
information because, under section 12(1) and regulations made under
section 12, the cost of complying would exceed the "appropriate
limit" (i.e. cost threshold) the authority should consider
providing an indication of what, if any, information could be
provided within the cost ceiling. The authority should also
consider advising the applicant that by reforming or re-focussing
their request, information may be able to be supplied for a lower,
or no, fee. “
But I also note that you mention in your refusal “I note that we
have also spent 41.5 hours in the previous 60 working days on
responding to requests from you, which we have not included in our
aggregation calculations on this occasion. “are your referring too
section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act sub-section 4 (a,b)?
If so I would suggest that your assumption is wrong, and that I am
in fact following the advice of the Audit Commission given to me on
the 28th September 2009 regarding my objections to the Councils
accounts. The Audit Commissioners advice is as follows “While this
marks the start of the objection process, I would encourage you and
the Council to continue your discussion with a view to resolving
the issue between you”.
As my own records show the Council, and more specifically the
Parking Department in general are not corresponding to the
residents or me, this leaves FOI requests as the only method to
complete my objections.

However your refusal could also be breaking the law, as the the
Audit Commission Act 1998 provides at 15(1) that:
(1) At each audit under this Act, other than an audit of accounts
of a
health service body, any persons interested may-
(a) inspect the accounts to be audited and all books, deeds,
contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them, and
(b) make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other
documents.
That is an explicit and unqualified right of an interested person
“at each audit”.
My understanding is that while District Auditors are at the present
time in the process of considering objections the “audit” is still
in progress so as to render the provisions of s. 15(1) to be
currently in force. If that is so then refusal by Westminster
Council of access to relevant documents must be contrary to the Act
and therefore contrary to law.
Secondly, in the matter of public inspection of accounts the
Accounts and Audit Regulations 2003 provides at 14(1):
"(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the relevant body or, as the case
may be, the chairman, notified under regulation 13, shall make the
accounts and other documents mentioned in section 15 of the 1998
Act available for public inspection for 20 working days before the
date appointed by the auditor under that regulation. In respect of
the accounts for 2008-09 that specified period of 20 working days
has undoubtedly passed but I see no provision in these Regulations
that enables a council to prevent me or other interested persons
from having sight of documents necessary to provide to their
District Auditor after that prescribed period."

Neither in these Regulations nor elsewhere do I see a prohibition
of any description that prevents an interested person having access
to necessary documents outside this 20-day period if there is good
reason for him to require it in connection with the continuing
audit. I am not aware of any power or authority of a council
unconditionally to refuse access to documents or request a fee of
£750 outside the 20-day period but I would readily accept that an
interested person would need to demonstrate to the council good
reason for requiring such access. If I am correct in that view then
I and others are currently faced with wrongful obstruction by
Westminster Council with the right of document inspection afforded
by the Act to persons whose objections are currently being
considered by District Auditors. It is necessary that we overcome
this obstruction, so I invite you to suggest how as you have issued
a refusal in this case. I would be willing to visit City Hall to
make copies of the information requested if this will help.

Accordingly, it seems to me that as the District Auditor is still
considering an objection from a registered elector he has the power
and authority to instruct Westminster Council to enable the
objector to have access to all documents that the objector requires
to present relevant evidence to him in connection with an
unresolved objection, so I am also willing to write to the District
Auditor with your refusal to provide the information if you do not
wish to do so, please let me know?

Should you refuse again I will also require a breakdown of your
estimated costs to pass on to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Blue

Dear FOI team,

The LAW allows you 20 working days to complete an internal review,
why have you allowed more than 20 working days to elapse without
replying to
this request?
I am surprised that with all the internal reviews you have had
concerning the late answers to FOI request that you still have not
been able to stay on the right side of the law.

Yours sincerely,

Blue

Dear FOI,

I notice you have not addressed the breaking of the FOI law in the
late replies to both the original FOI and the internal review.

I have passed the matter of continual law breaking onto the
information commissioner.

I will also question the times quoted in supplying this information
as a snail would possibly be faster in electronic information
retrieval than Westminster's parking department. Five hours for two
contracts recently supplied to a Councillor, pull the other one.

Yours sincerely,

Blue