Initial Attendance Charge After Incident

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Transport for London.

Dear Transport for London,

narrowing scope:
FOI-2318-1617 20 february 2017

I am interested in, for the past year

initial attendance charge following notification of an incident. the cost of attendance

resurfacing rates

replacement of tcb rates

and wish to be able to compare these across your contractors

please send me the contract for S London and all information relating to the charging of third parties

you have not sent me the information

Dave Merccer

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Merccer

 

Thank you for your recent e-mails regarding your outstanding FOI requests
and internal review. I apologise for the continued delay in responding to
your requests. We are still compiling the information you have requested.

 

As previously advised I am dealing with the following request received 30
March 2016 under reference FOI-2694-1516:

 

Follow-on from FOI-2318-1617:

1. I am interested in, for the past year
initial attendance charge following notification of an incident. the cost
of attendance
resurfacing rates
replacement of tcb rates
and wish to be able to compare these across your contractors
2. please send me the contract for S London and all information relating
to the charging of third parties

 

We received a duplicate of this request on 8 May 2017 via the
WhatDoTheyKnow website. We will continue to process this under
FOI-2694-1516.

 

We are also processing your request received on 2 May 2017 under
FOI-0216-1718:

 

You have said The £10k threshold applies to work carried out as a result
of 3^rd party damage. The contractor can seek reimbursement from the 3^rd
party. The contractor is not obliged to use contractual prices when
seeking reimbursement from 3^rd parties.
how must and do your contractors charge 3rd parties?
what do you tell contractors
what do they do
what can they do - charge anything they want?
what restrictions are there, what prices can they use?
please provide the extract from the contract that deals with this

 

In order to expedite our responses to these requests I will be processing
them concurrently and hope to be able to provide you with a response in
the next week or so.

 

In regard to your internal review, we also hope to provide you with a
response in the near future. Once again I apologise for the delay and the
lack of updates. Please

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[1][TfL request email]

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[TfL request email]
2. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/

Dear FOI,

i have not got a reply, i have not been provided the information
why not.
Yours sincerely,

Dave Merccer

Dear Transport for London,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Transport for London's handling of my FOI request 'Initial Attendance Charge After Incident'.

i have not got my information

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

Yours faithfully,

Dave Merccer

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Merccer

 

Thank you for your e-mails regarding your outstanding FOI requests. I know
there has been a significant delay in responding to your information
requests and again I apologise for the delays you have experienced.

 

There were some queries whilst we were reviewing our proposed responses
that required further discussion, this unfortunately resulted in the
continued delay. These issues have now been addressed and we expect to be
able to provide you with a response to all of your outstanding cases next
week. In light of this, if you could please confirm whether you would
still like us to process your internal review requests.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

Information Access Advisor

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[TfL request email]
2. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/

FOI, Transport for London

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr Merccer

 

Our Ref:         FOI-2694-1516 / FOI-0216-1718

 

Thank you for your e-mails asking for information about road repair
charging. Please accept my apologies for the delay in my response.

 

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can
confirm we hold some of the information you require. You asked:

 

FOI-2694-1516:

1.    I am interested in, for the past year:

a.    initial attendance charge following notification of an incident. the
cost of attendance

b.    resurfacing rates

c.    replacement of tcb rates

and wish to be able to compare these across your contractors

 

As previously advised, TfL employs four area London Highway Alliance
contractors (LoHACs) to undertake highway repairs to the sections of
highway for which we are the highway authority. All works are undertaken
and paid in accordance with the contract and are based on rates and lump
sums within the contract. These contractors also provide emergency
services to ensure that the highway remains safe. Any emergency works are
carried out as part of the lump sum payment to the contractor for any such
works up to £1,400 and any works valued above £1,400 would be paid by TfL
based on the contract schedule of rates.

 

As stated in our previous response to your requests for the rates we are
charged under LoHAC for these repairs (FO-1706-1516 and IRV-087-1516),
this information is subject to a statutory exemption to the right of
access to information under section 43(2). In this instance the section
43(2) exemption has been applied as disclosure would, or would be likely
to prejudice our commercial interests, as well as those of our
contractors. There are other companies who provide similar products and
disclosure of the price we currently pay could hinder our contractor’s
ability to competitively tender for similar contracts in the future as
well as hinder our ability to negotiate the best value for money for
similar services in the future.

 

The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the public
interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned.
Whilst the public interest test will naturally favour the release of
information in the pursuit of openness and transparency, when looking at
disclosure requests for contractual information we have to be mindful of
different commercial risks. These include consideration of the likelihood
that if detailed pricing information were disclosed it would likely result
in a clustering of bids based on previously negotiated payments when we
next go out to tender for the same or similar contracts. The commercial
interests of the contractors would be prejudiced by disclosure as they
compete with other firms for similar works across the country.

 

Releasing this information would also be prejudicial to each company’s
ability to compete for tendering opportunities with TfL and other
companies in the future, as their competitive edge would inevitably be
prejudiced by disclosure of a detailed breakdown of their price. The Panel
give significant weight to the argument that this contract is not unique,
we hold three similar contracts under LoHAC with companies who also
compete with other providers for similar contracts with other authorities
which come up for tender at different times. The Panel consider that
disclosure of the price information you seek would hinder TfL’s ability to
obtain best value for public money in future negotiations, and prejudice
the commercial interests of suppliers, which in this instance out weighs
the public interest in disclosure.

2. please send me the contract for S London and all information relating
to the charging of third parties

 

Please see section 2.24 of the attached Service Information (Common) for
the Central LoHAC which refers to third party damage. Please note that
this document is the same for all four LoHACs. As stated in our response
to FOI-1738-1617, the LoHAC does not provide a provision for the
contractor to show TfL the rates it charges to third parties. Therefore we
do not hold the information you have requested on the prices charged to
third parties or the process they follow when collecting these charges.

 

Please note that in accordance with TfL’s obligations under the Data
Protection Act 1998 (DPA) some personal data has been removed, as required
by section 40(2) of the FOI Act. This is because disclosure of this
personal data would be a breach of the DPA, specifically the first
principle of the DPA which requires all processing of personal data to be
fair and lawful. It would not be fair to disclose this personal
information when the individuals have no expectation it would be disclosed
and TfL has not satisfied one of the conditions of Schedule 2 of the Data
Protection Act which would make the processing ‘fair’. This exemption to
the right of access to information is an absolute exemption and not
subject to an assessment of whether the public interest favours use of the
exemption.

 

If the information provided does not satisfy this request at it appears
very broad, please provide a more detailed description of the information
you are seeking together with any other details you think might help us
locate the information you require.

 

FOI-0216-1718:

 

You have said The £10k threshold applies to work carried out as a result
of 3^rd party damage. The contractor can seek reimbursement from the 3^rd
party. The contractor is not obliged to use contractual prices when
seeking reimbursement from 3^rd parties.

·         how must and do your contractors charge 3rd parties?

·         what do you tell contractors

·         what do they do

·         what can they do - charge anything they want?

·         what restrictions are there, what prices can they use?

·         please provide the extract from the contract that deals with
this

 

Please refer to our answer to Q2 above and the attached document regarding
third party damage. We do not hold the information you have requested on
the prices charged to third parties or the process they follow when
collecting these charges.

 

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable
to access it for some reason, please feel free to contact me.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would
like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

FOI-2694-1516:

 

From: Dave Merccer
Sent: 30 March 2017 20:07
To: FOI
Subject: Re: FOI-2318-1617

narrowing scope:

 1. I am interested in, for the past year

initial attendance charge following notification of an incident. the
cost of attendance

resurfacing rates

replacement of tcb rates

and wish to be able to compare these across your contractors
 2. please send me the contract for S London and all information relating
to the charging of third parties

Dave Merccer

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FOI-0216-1718

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Transport for London,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Transport for London's handling of my FOI request 'Initial Attendance Charge After Incident'.

i have not been supplied the information, you say it is exempted for commercial reasons about pricing but you say the lowest bidder gets the contract. as you say at my request:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
the approach is worrying. we get services from the lowest bidder not the best. explain your reasons.
i have seen a bill where the charge is over £70 for every hour for a road worker initial incident charge after incident. lowest bidder £70? do you get charged £70 for an hour? what is £70 for? How much do you get charged? Who let your LOHAC people charge what they want? do they charge what they want to TfL? where is the contract? what are they allowed to charge?

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

Yours faithfully,

Dave Merccer

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Merccer

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received on 15 September 2017.

You have stated that you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

The review will be conducted by an internal review panel in accordance with TfL’s Internal Review Procedure, which is available via the following URL:

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/internal-revie...

Every effort will be made to provide you with a response by 13 October 2017. However, if the review will not be completed by this date, we will contact you and notify you of the revised response date as soon as possible.

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Emma Flint
Principal Information Access Advisor
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London
[TfL request email]

Dear FOI,

Subject: FW: FOI-1706-1516

thank you for your email. I have considered the commercial-interests exemption and cannot say I understand how this can be engaged. having made some enquiries I understand EMH, one of your contractors, is now owned by Kier and that they both have joint ventures i.e. they will know of one another's rates. I suspect the others have similar arrangements. They will all likely see one another's rates when they take on a new contract and inherit the old. These rates are likely all over the splace having been presented to drivers from whom monies are being sought.

surely the public interest test is openness and in this instance to assure good value was achieved.

the current contracts have a time to run. there is an argument putting the charges in the public domain will enable others to consider whether they could do the work for the same or less. also, as you would know the figures are out there, you could consider tenders accordingly. the tenders themselves are not open at the time of submission but submitted in confidence. I also doubt price is the only issue

rather than take the issue up with the ico, please can you advise what information about pricing you are prepared to divulge. I am interested in, since 2010:

initial attendance charge following notification of an incident. the cost of attendance

resurfacing rates

replacement of tcb rates

and wish to be able to compare these across your contractors

do I need to request an appeal for this to be considered further
thank you

D Merccer

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Merccer

 

IRV-073-1718

 

I am contacting you with regards to your Internal review request
concerning initial attendance charge after incident (FOI-2694-1516 /
FOI-0216-1718). This review has been carried out by an independent panel
following your email of 15 September 2017. The panel have reviewed all the
information held in relation to your request and liaised with the relevant
individuals when considering your complaint. Please accept my apologies
for the delay in responding.

 

The London Highways Alliance Contract (‘LoHAC’) is a joint initiative
between TfL and London's boroughs. Work under the LoHAC contract is
divided between four area-based highways contractors. The agreement
includes both local and TfL road maintenance and improvement works. The
savings to London boroughs and TfL from LoHAC have been estimated as being
up to £450m over the eight years of the contracts.

The LoHAC contractors carry out specified core services and for each such
service, they are paid an agreed TfL specific annual Lump Sum. In addition
LoHAC contractors may be required to carry out other works, such as
re-surfacing schemes, which are not covered by the Lump Sums and the price
of these works is calculated by reference to that contractor’s Schedule of
Rates and Percentage Adjustments

 

The Panel have thoroughly considered the application of s43 (2) to the
information you seek and agree that the commercial interests of TfL and
the other contracting public authorities would be prejudiced through
disclosure. Disclosure would reveal the LoHAC contractors’ bidding
strategy and would be likely to lead to clustering of bids around the sums
we have demonstrated a willingness to pay. This would give power to the
contractors in future contract negotiation. Disclosure of the detailed
pricing that has been requested would be particularly likely to have this
impact because similar contracts are held by TfL and other public
authorities. There are four LoHAC contracts covering London, which we
expect to re-let within the next 3 to 4 years.

 

Sharing the detailed pricing would mean the current contractors would know
what had been accepted in other areas and this may mean that they do not
offer their best price for parts of the works that they believe we would
be willing to pay more for. Similarly, bidders who do not currently hold
one of the contracts would be more likely to cluster their bids around the
current contract, rather than submit their most competitive offer. This
would not only affect TfL, but also the London Boroughs who are party to
the contract. The London Borough of Barnet have previously withheld the
schedule of rates for the call-off they have for the North-West London
LoHAC contract
[1]https://data.gov.uk/dataset/london-highw...

 

Disclosure of this information would also cause clear prejudice to the
contractors when negotiating with third parties. The Schedule of Rates
cover services and conditions that would be likely to apply to contracts
for highways across the country. The “commercial edge” of the contractors
includes their ability to combine the different pricing elements contained
in the requested information. The way they balance their costs against the
lump sum and the individual pricing elements requires skill to put forward
a competitive bid without exposing the company to unnecessary risk. This
is demonstrated by the variation between the bids submitted.

 

Contractors are operating in a competitive marketplace and their ability
to negotiate with other parties would be undermined if the rates agreed
under the LoHAC contracts were published. Those contractors would also
suffer detriment when competing for similar contracts, including the four
LoHAC contracts when the current arrangement comes to an end, as any
entrant to the market would be able to reap the benefits of their
investment in their costing model. The fact that there are four contracts
rather than one makes this different to other London wide schemes as the
four contractors are likely to be in competition with one another, as well
as with other firms not currently providing services under the contract.

 

Although it could be argued that disclosure would increase transparency
and accountability, the effect of publishing a breakdown of the prices
charged under the contract would be likely to harm the commercial
interests of both the contractors and the public authorities engaging
their services in a way that would be likely to lead to increased costs
being passed on to customers, residents, council tax payers and visitors.
Therefore, because of the potential cost to the public purse, and because
of the likelihood of prejudice to the commercial interests of contractors
when bidding for similar contracts, the public interest supports the
application of the exemption.

 

Therefore your complaint has not been upheld on this occasion. We hope to
above information is of use to you, however if you are dissatisfied with
the internal review actions to date (IRV-073-1718) you can refer the
matter to the independent authority responsible for enforcing the Freedom
of Information Act, at the following address:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

 

A complaint form is also available on the ICO’s website
([2]www.ico.org.uk).

 

Yours sincerely

 

Emma Flint

Principal Information Access Adviser

Transport for London

[3][TfL request email]

 

 

 

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

I asked for information in Feb’ you breached the Act by failing to give it to me.
10th May you said you hoped to respond in a week or near future.
5th July nothing so I wrote again
7th july you said there were ‘commercial reasons’ for not providing he information but you do not say how disclosure of the price you pay could hinder your contractor’s ability to competitively tender for similar contracts in the future or hinder your ability to negotiate the best value for money for similar services in the future.
September I asked for an internal review and asked further questions, more information
You did not write to me in 20 days
I had to wait 2 months only to have no proper explanation and the additional questions ignored.
Where is the additional information.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Merccer