Kier Highways Contract & SLA's

Mr P Swift made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Transport for London

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Transport for London.

Dear Transport for London,

I ask to be provided the following information:
1. A copy of the contact with Kier Highways insofar as it relates to claiming costs for repairs from third parties
2. The Service Level Agreement (SLA) for Kier’s response time to emergency incidents and
the SLA for Kier to remedy / repair damage following an emergency incident
4. The coverage Kier are to provide for attending emergency incidents i.e. whether this is 24/7 or otherwise
5. Whether TfLare charged a multiplier on hours by Kier Highways where Kier’s operatives work outside 8am to 5pm of a weekday

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift

 

Our Ref:         FOI-1909-1718

 

Thank you for your request received on 16 October 2017 asking for
information about the contract with Kier Highways.

 

Your request will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. 

 

Your request will be processed by TfL, the Greater London Authority and
its subsidiaries to provide you with a response in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.

 

A response will be sent to you by 13 November 2017. We publish a
substantial range of information on our website on subjects including
operational performance, contracts, expenditure, journey data, governance
and our financial performance. This includes data which is frequently
asked for in FOI requests or other public queries. Please check
[1]http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transpar... to see if this helps you.

 

We will publish anonymised versions of requests and responses on the
[2]www.tfl.gov.uk website. We will not publish your name and we will send
a copy of the response to you before it is published on our website.

 

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[3][TfL request email]

 

 

Dear FOI,

thank you

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Swift

 

Our Ref:         FOI-1909-1718

 

Thank you for your request received on 16 October 2017 asking for
information about the contract with Kier Highways.

 

Your request is being considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and our information access policy. I
can confirm we do hold the information you require.

 

However, in accordance with Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act
we are still considering the balance of the public interest in relation to
a qualified exemption that applies to the requested information and have
not yet reached a conclusion. The exemption under consideration is section
43 – commercial interests. It is estimated that a decision will be reached
by 12 December 2017 and I will write again to inform you of that decision.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

'commercial interests' is not applicable. Indeed, just this week I am advised that Highways England, on a similar subject, have withdrawn this exemption when the matter progressed to the ICO - their ref:FS50664292.
accordingly, int he event the information is not to be supplied within 20 working days i.e. within the next week, please progress to internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift

IRV-114-1718

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received on 10 November 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 8 December 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

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift

IRV-114-1718

I am contacting you regarding your internal review request concerning the extension of a further 20 working days under the provisions of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This review has been carried by an independent panel out following your e-mail of 10 November 2017.

Where a request is made under section 17 of the FOI Act and where a public authority is considering the use of a qualified exemption to the requested information, they may extend the period of 20 working days to consider the public interest test.

Whilst the panel understand that you were keen to receive the information you requested as soon as possible, the FOI Case Management team have identified that an exemption may apply to the information. As they are still in the course of weighing up the balance of public interest it was agreed by the Information Access Manager that an extension under the provisions of the FOI Act was appropriate at this time. This was clearly communicated to you in our email of 10 November 2017 with a new advised response date of 12 December 2017.

Every effort will be made to provide you with a response by this date. Once a response is provided to your request (FOI-1909-1718) we will offer you the opportunity to request a further internal review of the content of the response if you choose, even though you have already exercised your right to a review in view of our extension under the FOI Act.

Therefore, if you are not satisfied with the final response to FOI-1909-1718 please contact [TfL request email].

If you are dissatisfied with the internal review actions to date (IRV-114-1617) you can refer the matter to the independent authority responsible for enforcing the FOI 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 (www.ico.org.uk).

Yours sincerely

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

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Ms Flint

you did indeed explain to me CLEARLY in yours of 10/12/2017:

It is estimated that a decision will be reached by 12 December 2017 and I will write again to inform you of that decision.

for some reason, you are unable to make a decision whether or not to release within the usual month (20 working days) but my request in respect of which you clearly hold information requires another 20 days to undertake a public test. I am at a loss to understand this delay, the complications. Please elaborate.

on 10/11/2017 I explained ‘commercial interests’ was not appropriate. See:

http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/commerc...

on 13/11/2017 you wrote:

Every effort will be made to provide you with a response by 8 December 2017.

for reasons unknown, you had concluded it would take 4 less days to make your decision. Please explain.

Today I am subjected to another email in which you state:

I am contacting you regarding your internal review request concerning the extension of a further 20 working days under the provisions of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This review has been carried by an independent panel out following your e-mail of 10 November 2017.

I note ‘has been carried out’

Please supply the review findings by return.

Please also explain you reference to continued consideration.

Please explain what is now anticipated to be provide don 12/12/2017, presumably this differs to what was going to be supplied on 10/12/2017?

You have also written ‘Therefore, if you are not satisfied with the final response to FOI-1909-1718 please contact [TfL request email].’.

what ‘final response’?

the above relates to request FOI-1909-1718, I note a review has bene carried out but I have not been provided this and your writing is advising me yours is a final response.

to what do you intend to write on or by 08/12/2017 or 12/12/2017?

you have also written in respect of IRV-114-1617 to what does this refer and why does it appear in relation to request FOI-1909-1718 / IRV-114-1718

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Swift

 

Our Ref:         FOI-1909-1718 / FOI-2448-1718

 

Thank you for your requests received on 16 October and 26 November 2017
asking for information about Kier Highways and our LOHAC contractor
charges to third parties.

 

Your requests have been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can
confirm we do hold the information you require.

 

However, we are refusing your requests under section 14(2) of the Act as
it is a repeated request.

 

The ICO’s guidance includes a number of indicators that a public authority
may take into account when determining whether a request is vexatious. We
consider that the CMA requests display characteristics of two of these
indicators in that they show unreasonable persistence and impose an
unreasonable burden on the authority. Much of the information you have
requested in your two latest requests has previously been requested and
refused and we believe that were we to respond we would be repeating the
arguments that we have already clearly stated.

 

Please find our response below to the parts of your requests that we have
not previously answered:

 

2.    The Service Level Agreement (SLA) for Kier’s response time to
emergency incidents and the SLA for Kier to remedy / repair damage
following an emergency incident

3.    The coverage Kier are to provide for attending emergency incidents
i.e. whether this is 24/7 or otherwise

 

The Contractor shall:

i) Provide and operate an emergency call out service 24 hours per day,
every day from the Starting Date throughout the duration of the contract.
The required

response time shall be one hour for carriageways on Strategic Routes and
two hours for all other parts of the Network.

 

2.0.4.3 The response to defects identified as Cat 1 response requires the
defect to be either: a) temporarily repaired within 24 hours; b)
permanently repaired

within 24 hours; or c) made safe within 24 hours. The choice will depend
on two factors: a) the nature of the defect and whether the Contractor can
source the plant and materials required for completion of a temporary or
permanent repair within 24 hours; and b) an assessment of the overall
disruption caused to road users of each of the three options.

 

8.    The shifts the staff are engaged for by each contractor i.e. whether
24/7 weekdays, stand-by roster of a weekend etc

 

Control Room Staff                          24/7

Emergency Works Crews               24/7

Supervisors                                       7 days & Standby out of
hours.

Office Staff                                        Week day office hours
(07:30 to 17:30)

 

We apologise that we are unable to assist you on this occasion.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

 

FOI-1909-1718

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

please:
A. refer me to the duplication and
B. provide the information sought 22/11/2017:

Please elaborate.

Please supply the review findings by return.

Please also explain you reference to continued consideration.

Please explain what is now anticipated to be provide don 12/12/2017, presumably this differs to what was going to be supplied on 10/12/2017?

You have also written ‘Therefore, if you are not satisfied with the final response to FOI-1909-1718 please contact [TfL request email].’. what ‘final response’?

the above relates to request FOI-1909-1718, I note a review has bene carried out but I have not been provided this and your writing is advising me yours is a final response.

to what do you intend to write on or by 08/12/2017 or 12/12/2017?

you have also written in respect of IRV-114-1617 to what does this refer and why does it appear in relation to request FOI-1909-1718 / IRV-114-1718

Lastly, commercial sensitivity is further undermined by what should be an attempt (if not already undertaken) to move away from 'lowest-bid wins' contracts to 'value' based decsions, see:
http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/contrac...

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift

IRV-125-1718

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received on 12 December 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 15 January 2018. 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

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift

IRV-125-1718

Thank you for your email. After further review we are unable to ascertain specifically what it is you wish to appeal and what your complaint is referring to. Can you please clarify what it is you wish to appeal.

Please note that no further action will be taken until satisfactory clarification is provided.

Yours sincerely

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

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,
i wish to have reviewed and explained your responses, specifically:

1. please:
A. refer me to the duplication and
B. provide the information sought 22/11/2017:

Please elaborate.

2. Please supply the review findings by return.

3. Please also explain you reference to continued consideration.

4. Please explain what is now anticipated to be provide don 12/12/2017, presumably this differs to what was going to be supplied on 10/12/2017?

5. You have also written ‘Therefore, if you are not satisfied with the final response to FOI-1909-1718 please contact [TfL request email].’. what ‘final response’?

6. the above relates to request FOI-1909-1718, I note a review has bene carried out but I have not been provided this and your writing is advising me yours is a final response.

7. to what do you intend to write on or by 08/12/2017 or 12/12/2017?

8. you have also written in respect of IRV-114-1617 to what does this refer and why does it appear in relation to request FOI-1909-1718 / IRV-114-1718

9. Lastly, commercial sensitivity is further undermined by what should be an attempt (if not already undertaken) to move away from 'lowest-bid wins' contracts to 'value' based decsions, see:
http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/contrac...

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Swift

 

Attached is the internal review response I sent to you on 22 November 2017
in respect of FOI-1909-1718.  This review was conducted on the appeal
basis that you were dissatisfied that we have extended the deadline date a
further 20 working days to consider the public interest in connection with
the consideration of applying s43(2) of the FOI act. 

 

This was not a review of the final response to FOI-1909-1718 as our final
response had not been provided to you at this point and wasn’t completed
until the 12 December 2017.   To be clear the response provided on 12
December 2017 (ref FOI-1909-1718 & FOI-2448-1718) was our final response
to these 2 requests. 

 

I am unable to conduct another internal review of a previously provided
internal review response namely IRV-114-1718. Again please can you be
clear as to what specifically you wish to appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Emma Flint

Principal Information Access Adviser

FOI Case Management Team

Transport for London

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

i have received the response, i am asking you to explain some aspects and address the outstanding issues which I have numbered.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear FOI,

IRV-114-1718 - you extended the deadline without reasonable explanation. I have yet to receive the outcome. The response you attached is not a review but advises:

"I am contacting you regarding your internal review request concerning the extension of a further 20 working days under the provisions of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This review has been carried by an independent panel out following your e-mail of 10 November 2017. Where a request is made under section 17 of the FOI Act and where a public authority is considering the use of a qualified exemption to the requested information, they may extend the period of 20 working days to consider the public interest test.
Whilst the panel understand that you were keen to receive the information you requested as soon as possible, the FOI Case Management team have identified that an exemption may apply to the information. As they are still in the course of weighing up the balance of public interest it was agreed by the Information Access Manager that an extension under the provisions of the FOI Act was appropriate at this time. This was clearly communicated to you in our email of 10 November 2017 with a new advised response date of 12 December 2017.Every effort will be made to provide you with a response by this date. Once a response is provided to your request (FOI-1909-1718) we will offer you the opportunity to request a further internal review of the content of the response if you choose, even though you have already exercised your right to a review in view of our extension under the FOI Act."

the above is notice of an extension NOT a review as you note. My request is clear and displayed. Please confirm you are refusing to address the outstanding issues and i will present to the ICO without further delay. I repeat:
i wish to have reviewed and explained your responses, specifically:

1. please:
A. refer me to the duplication and
B. provide the information sought 22/11/2017:

Please elaborate.

2. Please supply the review findings by return.

3. Please also explain you reference to continued consideration.

4. Please explain what is now anticipated to be provide don 12/12/2017, presumably this differs to what was going to be supplied on 10/12/2017?

5. You have also written ‘Therefore, if you are not satisfied with the final response to FOI-1909-1718 please contact [TfL request email].’. what ‘final response’?

6. the above relates to request FOI-1909-1718, I note a review has bene carried out but I have not been provided this and your writing is advising me yours is a final response.

7. to what do you intend to write on or by 08/12/2017 or 12/12/2017?

8. you have also written in respect of IRV-114-1617 to what does this refer and why does it appear in relation to request FOI-1909-1718 / IRV-114-1718

9. Lastly, commercial sensitivity is further undermined by what should be an attempt (if not already undertaken) to move away from 'lowest-bid wins' contracts to 'value' based decsions, see:
http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/contrac...

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 15:44:17 +0000

IRV-114-1718

I am contacting you regarding your internal review request concerning the extension of a further 20 working days under the provisions of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This review has been carried by an independent panel out following your e-mail of 10 November 2017.

Where a request is made under section 17 of the FOI Act and where a public authority is considering the use of a qualified exemption to the requested information, they may extend the period of 20 working days to consider the public interest test.

Whilst the panel understand that you were keen to receive the information you requested as soon as possible, the FOI Case Management team have identified that an exemption may apply to the information. As they are still in the course of weighing up the balance of public interest it was agreed by the Information Access Manager that an extension under the provisions of the FOI Act was appropriate at this time. This was clearly communicated to you in our email of 10 November 2017 with a new advised response date of 12 December 2017.

Every effort will be made to provide you with a response by this date. Once a response is provided to your request (FOI-1909-1718) we will offer you the opportunity to request a further internal review of the content of the response if you choose, even though you have already exercised your right to a review in view of our extension under the FOI Act.

Therefore, if you are not satisfied with the final response to FOI-1909-1718 please contact [email address].

If you are dissatisfied with the internal review actions to date (IRV-114-1617) you can refer the matter to the independent authority responsible for enforcing the FOI 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 (www.ico.org.uk).

Yours sincerely

Emma Flint
Principal Information Access Adviser
FOI Case Management Team
Transport for London
[email address]

-----Original Message-----
From: FOI
Sent: 13 November 2017 10:25
To: '[email address]'
Subject: IRV-114-1718

Dear Mr Swift

IRV-114-1718

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received on 10 November 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 8 December 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

-----Original Message-----
From: Mr P Swift [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 10 November 2017 11:20
To: FOI
Subject: Re: FOI Request - Kier Highways Contract

Dear FOI,

'commercial interests' is not applicable. Indeed, just this week I am advised that Highways England, on a similar subject, have withdrawn this exemption when the matter progressed to the ICO - their ref:FS50664292.
accordingly, in the event the information is not to be supplied within 20 working days i.e. within the next week, please progress to internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

-----Original Message-----

Dear Mr Swift

Our Ref: FOI-1909-1718

Thank you for your request received on 16 October 2017 asking for information about the contract with Kier Highways.

Your request is being considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and our information access policy. I can confirm we do hold the information you require.

However, in accordance with Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act we are still considering the balance of the public interest in relation to a qualified exemption that applies to the requested information and have not yet reached a conclusion. The exemption under consideration is section
43 – commercial interests. It is estimated that a decision will be reached by 12 December 2017 and I will write again to inform you of that decision.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

[1][TfL request email]

FOI, Transport for London

3 Atodiad

Dear Mr Swift

 

The response provided on the 22 November 2017 (ref IRV-114-1718) was an
internal review response and not a notice of extension as you state. A
notice of extension was provided to you on 10 December 2017. I am unable
to conduct a further internal review of a previously answered internal
review.

 

Regarding your further queries I have addressed each one below:

 

1. please:

A. refer me to the duplication

 

Duplication referred to in our response of 12 December 2017 can be found
throughout the previous FOI requests you have to made TfL.

 

B. provide the information sought 22/11/2017:

 

We have no record of request on 22/11/17 but if you are referring to
FOI-2448-1718 which was received on the 26/11/17 we provided our final
response to this on the 12 December 2017.

 

Please elaborate.

 

2. Please supply the review findings by return.

 

If you are referring to the internal review of FOI-1909-1718, this was
provided on 22 November 2017 (IRV-114-1718).

 

3. Please also explain you reference to continued consideration.

 

Please refer to the response provided to IRV-114-1718.

 

4. Please explain what is now anticipated to be provide don 12/12/2017,
presumably this differs to what was going to be supplied on 10/12/2017?

 

It was anticipated that our final response to FOI-1909-1718 would be
provided on 12 December 2017, which it was.

 

5. You have also written ‘Therefore, if you are not satisfied with the
final response to FOI-1909-1718 please contact [TfL request email].’. what
‘final response’?

 

This refers to the final response which was anticipated to be provided by
the 12 December 2017, and subsequently was on this date.

 

6. the above relates to request FOI-1909-1718, I note a review has bene
carried out but I have not been provided this and your writing is advising
me yours is a final response.

 

An internal review response into the extension of time for FOI-1909-1718
was provided on 22 November 2017 (IRV-114-1819). The internal review
response advised that it was anticipated that a final response to
FOI-1909-1718 would be provided by 12 December 2017.

 

7. to what do you intend to write on or by 08/12/2017 or 12/12/2017?

 

The date of 8/12/17 refers to the response deadline for the internal
review ref IRV-114-1718. This was provided on 22 November 2017.

The date of 12/12/17 refers to the anticipated response date for the final
response to FOI-1909-1718.

 

8. you have also written in respect of IRV-114-1617 to what does this
refer and why does it appear in relation to request FOI-1909-1718 /
IRV-114-1718

 

IRV-114-1718 is the internal review carried out in relation to your
complaint that the 20 working day deadline for FOI-1909-1718 had been
extended to consider the public interest test in relation to s43 of the
FOI Act.

 

9. Lastly, commercial sensitivity is further undermined by what should be
an attempt (if not already undertaken) to move away from 'lowest-bid wins'
contracts to 'value' based decisions, see:

[1]http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/contrac

 

I am unable to comment on the above statement.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Emma Flint

Principal Information Access Adviser

FOI Case Management Team

Transport for London

[2][TfL request email]

 

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Jacob Smith anodiad ()

Have you noted the response? It seems they expect you to find their duplication. Good luck.

Gadawodd Mr P Swift anodiad ()

To ICO 09/01/2018

FOI, Transport for London

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr Swift

 

TfL ref FOI-1909-1718

ICO ref FS50719256

 

Further to our response of 12 December 2017 and following our
communications with the Information Commissioners Office regarding the
current complaint you have logged with them, we have taken the opportunity
to review our original decision regarding the application of s14(2) to
questions 1 and 4 asked in your FOI request of 16 October 2017.

 

You asked for the following:

 

A copy of the contact with Kier Highways insofar as it relates to claiming
costs for repairs from 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 LoHACs. The contract does not provide a
provision for the contractor to show TfL the rates it charges to third
parties, therefore we do not hold that information 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’.

 

 

Whether TfL are charged a multiplier on hours by Kier Highways where
Kier’s operatives work outside 8am to 5pm of a weekday.

 

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act we are not obliged to
provide this information as it is subject to a statutory exemption to the
right of access to information under section 43 (2) commercial interests.

 

In this instance the exemption has been applied as disclosure would be
likely to prejudice the commercial interests of us and our suppliers by
hindering their ability to operate competitively in the market place for
future contracts of this nature. Provision of this information would allow
rival bidders and potential clients to have an insight on their pricing
structure and manipulate this to hinder the ability of our contractors to
conduct their business as competitively as possible. LoHACs are not aware
of the rates of other LoHACs.

 

The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the public
interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. We
recognise the need for openness and transparency by public authorities,
but in this instance we feel that the balance of public interest lies in
favour of withholding the information to ensure that future tender
processes of this nature remain fair and effective for all parties.

 

We also refer to the recent decision notice issued by the Information
Commissioners Office with regards to the application s43(2) to the above
information
[1]https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Emma Flint

Principal Information Access Adviser

FOI Case Management Team

Transport for London

[TfL request email]

 

 

 

From: FOI
Sent: 12 December 2017 15:57
To: '[FOI #438881 email]';
'[email address]'
Subject: FOI Request - Kier Highways / LOHAC Contractor Charges to Third
Parties

 

Dear Mr Swift

 

Our Ref: FOI-1909-1718 / FOI-2448-1718

 

Thank you for your requests received on 16 October and 26 November 2017
asking for information about Kier Highways and our LOHAC contractor
charges to third parties.

 

Your requests have been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can
confirm we do hold the information you require.

 

However, we are refusing your requests under section 14(2) of the Act as
it is a repeated request.

 

The ICO’s guidance includes a number of indicators that a public authority
may take into account when determining whether a request is vexatious. We
consider that the CMA requests display characteristics of two of these
indicators in that they show unreasonable persistence and impose an
unreasonable burden on the authority. Much of the information you have
requested in your two latest requests has previously been requested and
refused and we believe that were we to respond we would be repeating the
arguments that we have already clearly stated.

 

Please find our response below to the parts of your requests that we have
not previously answered:

 

2.    The Service Level Agreement (SLA) for Kier’s response time to
emergency incidents and the SLA for Kier to remedy / repair damage
following an emergency incident

3.    The coverage Kier are to provide for attending emergency incidents
i.e. whether this is 24/7 or otherwise

 

The Contractor shall:

i) Provide and operate an emergency call out service 24 hours per day,
every day from the Starting Date throughout the duration of the contract.
The required

response time shall be one hour for carriageways on Strategic Routes and
two hours for all other parts of the Network.

 

2.0.4.3 The response to defects identified as Cat 1 response requires the
defect to be either: a) temporarily repaired within 24 hours; b)
permanently repaired

within 24 hours; or c) made safe within 24 hours. The choice will depend
on two factors: a) the nature of the defect and whether the Contractor can
source the plant and materials required for completion of a temporary or
permanent repair within 24 hours; and b) an assessment of the overall
disruption caused to road users of each of the three options.

 

8.    The shifts the staff are engaged for by each contractor i.e. whether
24/7 weekdays, stand-by roster of a weekend etc

 

Control Room Staff 24/7

Emergency Works Crews 24/7

Supervisors 7 days & Standby out of hours.

Office Staff Week day office hours (07:30 to 17:30)

 

We apologise that we are unable to assist you on this occasion.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[2][TfL request email]

 

 

 

FOI-1909-1718

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your review and the disclosure. I ask to be provided more information about the review; a copy of same, the considerations, deliberations etc

With regard to the application of a multiplier, your contractor, Kier Highways Ltd charges Third Parties, drivers, fleets and insurers an uplift in the event they work outside ‘core hours’ which Kier Highways Ltd state is 8am to 5pm of a weekday. In support of this statement they have issued a guide and tell us that this has been adopted as ‘best practice’ by Highways England. The relevant section of the document 'An Insurer’s Guide to Incident Management & Claims Recovery' is on page 4. The entire document can be found here: http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/wp-cont...

Kier Highways are presenting more than 3,000 claims to Third Parties each year the above is in general circulation and we have highlighted the information / concerns throughout the industry and on line. It also appears to be common knowledge that the process is unusual within the industry.

I have not sought information about pricing, just multipliers.

You are referred to a more recent ICO decision https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

Dear FOI,

Dealing separately with your statement about claims presented to Third Party (drivers, fleets and insurers):

‘The contract does not provide a provision for the contractor to show TfL the rates it charges to third parties, therefore we do not hold that information or the process they follow when collecting these charges’.

Section 2.24.1 of the contract states:

‘Subject to the Employer selecting service 24 – 3rd Party Damage – reactive
works – the Contractor shall permanently repair 3rd party damage to
Employer assets within the Affected Property and be reimbursed through a
lump sum where all of the following apply:

a) the damage was not the result of a fatal accident;
b) the damage was not caused by the Employer or anyone acting directly on his behalf; and
c) the estimated cost of permanent repair is not more than £10,000 based on the contract Price List.’

I refer you to ‘c’ above:

1. there exists a ‘Price List’ as part of the contract – TfL, party to the contract, will therefore possess this
2. it is this Price List which is to be used for establishing whether the contractor retains the claim or is paid by TfL
3. it appears TfL permit their contractors to charge Third Parties more than they are billed i.e. using a different, higher, Price List, one not held by TfL

Given the process described, it appears only reasonable that to ensure each and every contractor was complying with the contract, using the Price List agreed, they would be audited regularly, monitored.

As a Public Authority, ‘working for us’, it does not appear fitting to enable contractors to charge whatever they like and to prevent Third Parties from easily considering the reasonableness of the sums by reference to the Price List agreed.

There appears to be no mechanism for ensuring Third Parties are not being overcharged, exploited. It appears Third Parties may be subsidising road maintenance.

No explanation has bene provided for why the Authority permitted contractors to use a different schedule to that which TfL, familiar with the environment, agreed. If the Price List agreed is reasonable and allows for a profit, it appears TfL permit a greater profit to be extracted from Third Parties.

It is apparent the Price List is far from confidential given its principle purpose is addressing repairs which are claimed from Third Parties. Furthermore, as contractors, stepping into the shoes of a Public Authority, it seems bizarre that they are permitted to charge as much as they wish (can get away with) whilst Third Party have no access to the ‘base rates’, the Price List, for comparison.

In addition to providing the multipliers, I wish to be provided the Price List and all information relating to the monitoring of contractor conduct such that the above issues are addressed.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

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 'Kier Highways Contract & SLA's'.

please see mine of 25/04/2018. If the information is not to be provided to explain your response, in the usual course of business,, I believe it should have been acted upon as a new FoI request.

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift,

Both of your emails of 25 April 2018 were addressed in my email directly to you on 3 May 2018, which incorporated all outstanding matters at that time.

I would be happy to send an extract of this email to whatdotheyknow.com to the extent it relates specifically to those two 25/4/18 emails if you feel this would be of any benefit.

As this matter has already been addressed, we will not be conducting an internal review.

Yours sincerely

Lee Hill
Information Access Manager

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

i would appreciate you re-sending the email if it / they address the issue(s)

thank you

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift,

An extract from my email of 3 May can be found below. As you will know, you have already previously responded directly to this email.

Yours sincerely

Lee Hill
Information Access Manager

Emails of 25 April 2018
In your email of 15:00 on the above date, you state “I ask to be provided more information about the review; a copy of same, the considerations, deliberations etc”. Given the advice provided above, I would be grateful if you could clarify exactly what information you require. As previously stated, FOI covers recorded information and not an explanation that was not recorded at the time of your request. However, in the interests of openness and transparency, I can confirm that the review referred to, including the considerations and deliberations, was mostly conducted verbally but a handful of emails would have been generated around ensuring our approach was correct, as well as drafting the response.

If you would like to submit an FOI request for those emails referred to, please confirm this succinctly and we will begin to process this.

Your email then attempts to engage us in dialogue around the contract and your dealings with Highways England, including a Decision Notice. As I have explained above, the FOI team’s function is to process FOI requests and respond accordingly. We do not have any involvement in procurement processes or any other matter that enables us to provide a judgment on the information provided, other than determine whether information caught by a request should be subject to disclosure or one or more exemptions. In addition to this, clearly we are unable to provide comment on any Decision Notices in which we are not party to.

In your email of 16:07 you raise several issues which appear to conflate a complaint about one of our contractors, a complaint about the structure of our contractors, some dissatisfaction with the answer to your request and, potentially, a further FOI request. As explained above, many of the matters in this email are not matters for the FOI Case Management Team and so we would consider the inclusion of FOI requests, buried within several paragraphs of non-FOI related material, to inflict a needless burden forcing us to sift through emails to extract anything which might conceivably be an FOI request from a multi-faceted and heavily conflating email. This now leads to confusion as to your intentions and what steps you would like the FOI Case Management Team to take next. For example, it isn’t clear whether you would like an internal review conducted into the handling of your request or whether you are simply expressing your displeasure at the fact your request did not produce the conclusion you had hoped for.

Furthermore, the section of your request that is potentially an FOI request is as follows: “In addition to providing the multipliers, I wish to be provided the Price List and all information relating to the monitoring of contractor conduct such that the above issues are addressed.”

Once again the wording of this is unclear and therefore we are unable to process this request at present. Could you please specify what ‘multipliers’ you are referring to. Additionally, it isn’t clear which price list you are referring to and exactly how this might differ from previous requests you have made in the past. Lastly, where you ask for “all information relating to the monitoring of contractor conduct such that the above issues are addressed”, could you please state clearly the precise information you require. For example, are you interested in one specific contractor, the LOHAC contractors or all contractors that TfL are engaged with, along with a period of time for which your request should cover.

We will not be processing either of the potential requests detailed above until we have received suitable clarification of the information you require.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

The issue is not whether I have responded but whether it addresses the points I have raised. The above does not.
I have returned to the issue with, what I believe is clarity. I await the information sought.
Possibly this is sufficient to address the requests you previously ref used, if not, please explain what aspects remains not understood.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift,

I remain unclear as to what information you are seeking.

If you are submitting an FOI request, please state clearly the information you require as clearly and concisely as possible.

Yours sincerely

Lee Hill
Information Access Manager

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

My request is clear and you have note explained what issue is unclear, what you do nto understand.

I have written:

'1. there exists a ‘Price List’ as part of the contract – TfL, party to the contract, will therefore possess this
2. it is this Price List which is to be used for establishing whether the contractor retains the claim or is paid by TfL
3. it appears TfL permit their contractors to charge Third Parties more than they are billed i.e. using a different, higher, Price List, one not held by TfL'
and:

'In addition to providing the multipliers, I wish to be provided the Price List and all information relating to the monitoring of contractor conduct such that the above issues are addressed'

You have not supplied the price schedule / list, you have not advised whether multipliers are applied to these charges and if so, when.

I have asked for an internal review. It does not appear this has occurred.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Gadawodd Mr P Swift anodiad ()

sent to the ICO

FOI, Transport for London

1 Atodiad

 

 

Dear Mr Swift

 

TfL Ref: FOI-1637-1819

 

Thank you for your email received by us on 18 September 2018 asking for
information about LoHAC contracts.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.

 

However, in accordance with the FOI Act we are refusing your request under
section 14(1) of the FOI Act. Section 14(1) states that we are not obliged
to comply with a request that is vexatious and, having considered the
Information Commissioner’s Office guidance in respect of determining
vexatious requests, we consider that this applies to your request.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Lee Hill

Senior FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/

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 'Kier Highways Contract & SLA's'.

it is apparent you are seeking to keep secret information necessarily required by the public. It appears there is an intention to frustrate in addition to obstruct, that it is TfL who are vexatious.

It is suspected that this conduct is to allow your contractor(s) to overcharge drivers, fleets and insurers -- Third Parties, or the public you claim to serve.

It is noted you cite no reasons why s14 is considered appropriate. The response is far from helpful
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/k...

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received on 12 October 2018.

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 9 November 2018. 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.

Yours sincerely

Emma Flint
Principal Information Access Advisor
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Jacob Smith anodiad ()

If you're asking about AIW's then they're probably going to be the same as in England Areas shift workers getting a wage and flat-rate overtime. Look at www.englandhighways.co.uk

Gadawodd Mr P Swift anodiad ()

Thanks - I know a little about www.englandhighways.co.uk ;-)

Gadawodd Mr P Swift anodiad ()

fyi ...
I suspect this will go the way of:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
my response being below. If you have any figures to share, please pm. My concerns are simple:
Kier Highways work for TfL and use a process they use throughout England.
Kier state the process they use in England is compliant with their contract. It is not.
Taking an AIW as an example, you should be paying about £30 / hour. You’re paying over £60.
This can be £90+ (after 5pm) or £120+ / hour (weekends) after Kier add a multiplier because, they say, AIW’s:
• Work 8am to 5pm
• Are paid these multiplier uplifts
But what if, as I understand, the AIW’s ARE shift workers and NOT paid the uplifts?
You can ask Highways England, TfL and Kier about this but will be given false answers, obstructed and told you are either vexatious or that the data is ‘commercially sensitive’.
It is difficult to conclude that the ‘commercially sensitive’ exemption is not simply a means by which to keep you from the information that would substantiate profiteering … or worse.
For example, in 2016, Kier told us the cost of an AIW was £58 / hour. In 05/2018 Highways England disclosed the rate of an AIW in Area 9 during 2016 - £23.71. Interesting business model; charge less than the cost of an item.
Regards
P. Swift

Dear Sir,
I took the time, on the 1st approach from Mr Hill, to comprehensively present the outstanding issues. These were treated dismissively and as yet have not been addressed. I do not appreciate his playground antics or the lack of attention to my detailed submission. Seemingly, it was all too much for him, too complicated.
I sought to narrow my request to the latest 3 issues in part to obtain information, in part to bring this to TfL’s attention, to ensure you were in no doubt about the issues. The information revealed would identify the concerns and enable someone to act. This may not be the role of your department, but I felt it worth ensuring that concerns were brought to a head, evidenced and TfL given the opportunity to put you own house in order.
This follows a serious concern that your own fraud department has intentionally ignored the issues. I presented and demonstrated my concerns at a meeting. I was left believing the matters would be investigated. I had to chase a response and ultimately this was a brief dismissal. Indeed, such were the tone and comments I believe I asked who had ‘got to’ the ‘investigator’.
The issue is not complicated, save that for those who do not have years of experience, the ability to cross-reference and understand the many facets, hindered by Public Authorities, they stand no chance of reconciling costs. If they do not pay up, if the demand is not met, they are threatened with legal action, increased costs.
Conversely, when TfL are presented a bill by their contractor, you are able to refer to the contract, check the schedule of costs, ensure the works were completed, insist upon corroborative information and (as the employer) ask questions expecting to be answered.
Third Parties, drivers, fleets and insurers of those vehicles on London’s roads are disadvantaged as they are kept from the very information they need to make an informed decision. ‘Serving the public’ does not appear to be a concern for your Authority.
I believe it correct to raise a concern that the obstruction I have encountered is assisting a contractor to overcharge. That TfL has, for years, elected to engage ‘vexatious’ or ‘commercially sensitive’ assists contractors as it helps to keep the very information Third Parties require secret. This appears to be the motive for withholding information.
This is all the more concerning because, unlike in some Highways England areas, you appear to have made no provision to protect your public from profiteering; it seems contractors can do as they wish, charge what they can get away with.
It is arguable that the correct place to question, challenge and resolve these matters is a County Court. However, I refer you to my comments above; you are expecting a Third Party to attend a gun-fight armed with a knife. Furthermore, sub-threshold, under £10,000, the Courts have little time to consider the intricacies, the many facets … and let’s not forget, I am deemed an ‘expert’ which is used to exclude my evidence which further disadvantages Third Parties and prevents a balanced picture being presented.
Much has happened since I met your ‘investigator’. For example:
I have attended Court and heard your contractor makes statements. I obtained transcripts because the statements were obviously incorrect. The judge was quickly able to conclude that, in order to charge an hour to every file, your contractor’s DCP Manager would need to work 1.4 hours in every hour and do nothing else.
Then there is the issue of ‘averaging’. I make mention of Highways England because we see more claims from them (larger area / network) but because the contractor uses the same pricing / presentation methodology on your claims. Your contractor will say some costs are (understandably) averaged; it is not reasonable to expect admin’ staff to maintain strict time-sheets / diaries so the costs are averaged over the year. This is sensible, acceptable. However, the averaging is misrepresented. I see over-threshold claims presented to Public Authorities, I see what the admin’ charge is to them on over-£10,000 claims (where you would expect greater costs) and it is lower. Averaging does not occur. Facts are misrepresented to me, insurers, drivers, fleets and the Courts.
I have a particular issue with AIW’s, their costs. These operatives appear to do a good job, are an effective, necessary resource. Those I have liaised with indicate they work shifts and overtime is paid at flat rate. The paperwork I see for them indicates they work 9.5 hour shifts, usually in pairs with a bespoke vehicle. I am told they earn about £40,000 / annum and this seems a decent wage for shift-workers albeit in an often difficult environment. I was able, pre 10/2015 to work out that they should cost no more than £30 / hour.
• On the subject of pre-2015, has anyone worked out what Kier need to repay drivers, fleets and insurers for charging using 1153 and not 5400 to divide their costs by?
‘Overnight’ in 10/2015 an AIW’s cost escalated to £70+ / hour (currently £60+) indeed, before 10/2015 they were cheaper than the DCP Claims Manager, after they were more expensive.
But my main gripe with their costs (not them) is that Kier Highways charge a 1.5x multiplier after 5pm of a weekday and 2x of a weekend claiming this is what they pay AIW’s.
The evidence in my possession indicates they are NOT paid this sum. I am aware Highways England do not pay the multipliers yet they are charged to Third Parties because the contractor states this is what they pay their staff.
If, as I believe to be the case, the staff are not paid these uplifts, how would you describe the action of claiming for a cost that you do not incur, of making false representations to gain?
There is no intention on my part to cause anyone at TfL disruption. I have conveyed my concerns to TfL and it appears there is a concerted effort to withhold information as to release data would substantiate the conduct, require TfL to take action and affect their relationship with contractors.
The impact upon you, dealing with my basic requests, would be minimal. I have sought information about the contract insofar as it applies to charging Third Parties. I may have exhausted this; it appears TfL did nothing to protect the public, to restrict what a contractor could charge. I am content to leave this – ultimately, whether or not you considered the public when entering into contracts, the fact is they are not aided, we abandoned.
Reasonableness - I know, to an extent, the rates Kier charge Highways England as some have been released following FoIA requests. I suspect they are similar to TfL but the London ‘weighting’ may affect staff, rather than plant (vehicles). I have been provided the base rate or ‘defined cost’ of an AIW by Kier, so I know what they are said to cost however, I believe this cost was misrepresented. Let’s face it, something is up when the base rate is over £50 and a Public Authority is charged less than £30!
I know that the charging process and the costs used by Kier within TfL’s jurisdiction when billing Third Parties, is as Highways England Areas; laid out in a CBD (cost breakdown document). As of yet, I do not know what you are charged or for an AIW vehicle – to Highways England it is about £15 / hour, to Third Parties, in excess of £30 / hour.
Honesty - TfL had the opportunity to consider and address this, they could still.
Are AIW’s and repair operatives (traffic management and barrier repair crews) paid the uplifts?
To date, it appears this is profiteering enabled and assisted by TfL.
I have more recently seen reference to the lumpsum payment you pay a contractor being associated with incident attendance hence the request is new, not touched on before.
I do find the unwillingness to disclose information frustrating. The obstruction appears intended to enable the practice of overcharging to continue. ‘Commercial sensitivity’ seems to mean ‘commercially embarrassing’, or worse.
I would like to think that my taking the time to set out the issues (above) would help convince you that my purpose is serious, my concerns valid, my approach reasonable (I accept I am somewhat verbose) and possibly your fresh set of eyes will find a way forward?
Yours sincerely,
Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

 

 

From: FOI
Sent: 25 October 2018 10:02
To:
Subject: IRV-065-1819

 

Dear Mr Swift

 

IRV-065-1819

 

I am contacting you regarding your request for an internal review
concerning the response provided to your FOI requests.

 

On 12 October 2018 you requested an internal review into the handling of
your FOI requests under case reference FOI-1637-1819. We have considered
the response you were issued with, namely a refusal under section 14(1) of
the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Having reviewed this decision, and the context around it, the use of
section 14 to refuse your requests has been upheld and I consider the
correspondence between yourself and Lee Hill, manager of the FOI Case
Management Team, which outlines the issues surrounding your requests,
supports the application of the exemption and is a fair reflection of the
current situation.

 

You have outlined in your email correspondence your frustration at the way
in which your FOI requests have been answered by TfL and your continued
insistence that we are being obstructive and you appear to imply a
collusion with Keir Highways to allow excessive cost rates to be charged. 
Specifically you stated throughout your correspondence with Lee Hill the
following - “it appears you are intentionally obstructing my request,
acting in a vexatious manner”, " I suspect your perception arises from a
desire to avoid addressing an issue, that you have adopted a negative
stance" and "I would appreciate you not engaging in playground-antics".  I
do not think it is right to imply any deliberate attempts have been made
by TfL staff to cause obstruction or frustration and consider that at
times the tone of your emails have felt inflammatory, whether this was
intentional or not.

 

A public authority is not obliged to comply with a request(s) under s14(1)
of the Act, or obliged to outline in detail why the exemption has been
engaged and there is no public interest test consideration required. The
Information Commissioner’s guidance outlines that section14(1) is
applicable if it is deemed that the impact on an authority of dealing with
the request(s) cannot be justified due to it being so unreasonable or
objectionable it causes a disproportionate level of disruption, irritation
or distress that in its very nature it is vexatious.  Additionally the
guidance goes on to outline that aggressive language, personal grudges,
unreasonable persistence and unfounded accusations are indicators of a
patently vexatious request.

 

More information about s14 of the Act can be found on the Information
Commissioner’s website using the following link:
[1]https://ico.org.uk/media/1198/dealing-wi...

 

If you are dissatisfied with the internal review actions to date 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 (www.ico.org.uk).

 

Yours sincerely

 

Richard Bevins

Head of Information Governance and Data Protection Officer

Information Governance Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

 

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/media/1198/dealing-wi...
2. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/

Dear FOI,

I believe your description of vexatious has been incorrectly applied, that you are confusing my conduct with that of your staff. I am content to refer the matter to the ICO but invite you support your statements in respect of the inferred aggressive language, personal grudges, unreasonable persistence and unfounded accusations are indicators of a patently vexatious request. Not to do so is unreasonable and places me at a disadvantage, which it appears has long been your stance.

I am frustrated by the conduct encountered. I have explained this.

Either I am implying collusion or I am not. What aspects is so unclear as to only enable you to conclude I 'appear' to imply a collusion with Keir Highways to allow excessive cost rates to be charged? I obviously do not know whether this is the case but your approach, from the actions of your 'investigator' with whom I met and presented information, to the present suggest the intention is to protect a contractor and thereby enable their excessive charging conduct to continue.

I remind you (or inform you if you are unaware) that between 07/2014 and 10/2015 your contractor routinely overcharged drivers, fleets, hauliers and fleets involved in collisions. To do so they used a process (1153) that saw 5-fold exaggeration. TfL did not identify this, failed to stop the activity and it was left for us to do so. In 10/2015 Kier Highways abandoned the process. Instead they instigated their 'exaggeration in another guise' procedure.

Your conduct, the obstruction I have encountered, enables the processes to continue. My statements are based in fact conversely, you make assumptions. It was open for you to question my comments where you lacked understanding or queried my statements, but you have elected not to do so.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Gadawodd Jacob Smith anodiad ()

You need to ask them why they are not monitoring their contractors. Kier's charge rates are the same in London and elsewhere. It seems TfL have agreed a decent rate for the repairs they pay in return for ignoring the high rates the contractor can bill drivers. You need to visit www.englandhighways.co.uk the fraud is not the contract or charge rates that's just plain taking advantage. But where you're billed double time for guys who don't get the money how's that right?

Gadawodd Mr P Swift anodiad ()

To the ICO 02/01/2019.
Re vexatious, it will be noted, with regard to a similar situation involving Highways England, a Tribunal Decision found for me, that my request was NOT vexatious:
http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/not-vex...
An extract from which is as follows:
‘We have considered the motive of the requestor and in particular his detailed Reply and exhibits commencing at Page 29 of the Hearing Bundle before us. These submissions supported by the documents provided and annexed have persuaded us not only that the Motive of the requestor had a serious purpose and arose from genuine and informed concern but had significant value with a high degree of Public Interest. On the evidence before us we could not find the request were manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or an improper use of FOIA.’

‘We find that the failure to recognise and process the requests was principally caused by inadequate or inaccurate responses by the personnel within Public Authority. We find this to be the cause of what came to be described as “Obsessive behaviour” on the part of the requestor.’

‘We accept that the purpose of the request was to obtain information to support a proposed claim of misfeasance in public office and that there was an adequate and proper justification for the request. On the evidence before us we accept that the request is serious and justified in that it related to suspected gross overcharging of Third Parties which was alleged to have been enabled and assisted by the Public Authority. If he was correct in his concerns the Requestor was attempting to identify Fraud.’

We have been persuaded that he has received erroneous information.

Amongst other issues he requested information on three issues his business is concerned which include; a) One of the contractors was inflating their costs on a scale arguably amounting to fraud; b) Costs are different according to Third Parties being billed directly on the basis that the costs of the works fall below the procedural threshold and c) Transparency and an inability to check costs e.g. on Staff overtime and using false registration VRN number plates. We are satisfied his requests on these issues would have taken forward these matters which were worthy of investigation.

Further we find that the exposure of potential misfeasance in public office is a matter of objective public interest. So too, is the exposure, inter-alia of evidence of alleged overcharging, withholding information from the public alleged systematic overcharging and fraud by a contractor. We find that the request had an adequate and proper justification.