Reasons for the split parking signage on Bouverie Place, and for discriminatory parking enforcement at that location

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please provide the following information. It was requested on 22nd
June 2009, but my request has been ignored. I am now repeating my
request, this time under the FOI Act.

1a. Why the black vehicle making a conscious breach of the parking
conditions on 8th June 2009 at 19:50 (breaching the boundaries of
the bay markings)was not ticketed.

1b. The professional opinion of Westminster's head of parking
enforcement as to whether the officer making this decision was
applying policy correctly, and, if yes, why.

1c. The written policy in Westminster regulating the exercise of
discretion by parking enforcement officers.

2a. The date of introduction of each of the two signs on the same
stretch of road in Bouverie Place.

2b. The committee report(s) proposing the sign in each case.

2c. The lawful Traffic Order for each sign.

2d. All correspondence (including e-mails) between officers
discussing the proposal to erect each sign, and in particular
discussing the merits and drawbacks of operating a split policy in
the street.

2e. Details of public consultations on the introduction of these
particular parking controls, including the number of separate
consultations if more than one, the dates, sizes and catchment
areas of mailouts, the questionnaire wordings, a breakdown of
responses and any forms of non-resident consultation (eg with
drivers' organisations).

2f. Evidence showing that the risks of injustices against drivers
caused by inconsistent policy and signage has been formally
considered and appropriately mitigated, and how the risk mitigation
measures were chosen.

2g. The number of offences committed against in each of the two
enforcement zones in this street for each full financial year since
its introduction.

3a. The Corporate Governance policies Westminster Council has in
place to overcome the conflict of interest between income
generation and revenue maximisation on the one hand, and the fair
and equitable operation of parking enforcement complying with
natural justice and clear specification of official requirements on
the other.

3b. In particular, please specify the controls in place (eg a
beneficiary from fines other than Westminster Council) that prevent
the perverse policy incentive to generate fines revenue by the
placing of misleading signage.

Yours faithfully,

J Batchellor.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Westminster City
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Reasons for the split parking
signage on Bouverie Place, and for discriminatory parking
enforcement at that location'.

A response was due by 8th September. I was informed that the
Parking Department was dealing with it and would be getting back to
me. I have supplied my postal address in N3 to them twice. When
will I get a response, either by e-mail or conventional post? Why
have you exceeded the statutory FoI maximum (so far by over three
weeks) without giving me any update or explanation?

A full history of my FOI request and all FoI correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

In addition I have been in correspondence with the Council direct
asking why nothing is happening on the following occasions:

22 June 2009.

10 August 2009 (On that occasion I also asked why I Westminster
Council does not provide a link to a complaints investigation
process on its website search engine, which returned no hits to me
after search on the word "complaints". I requested that your
officer in charge of customer services reply to me giving their
opinion as to whether they consider this to be a satisfactory
aspect of Westminster Council's customer service. An
acknowledgement response by Wendy Fraser, [email address], did not
deal with this but said Parking would be in touch shortly).

22 August 2009 (Two days later I was informed by Angela Ross,
[email address], that Parking would be in touch shortly).

24 August 2009 (The next day I was informed by Danielle Fraser,
[email address], that Parking would be in touch shortly).

How short is shortly please?

Yours faithfully,

J Batchellor