LIP Funding Audits

Roedd y cais yn llwyddiannus.

Dear Transport for London,

LIP Funding Audits

Under terms of LIP funding terms ALL London authorities obtaining funding must keep accurate records of expenditure in order that TFL may carry out an audit underlined by the following statement.

"TfL has the right to carry out audits in respect of financial assistance provided by TfL. In practice, an audit of one representative scheme per borough will be undertaken at the
end of each financial year. It is recognised that authorities will have their own requirements for auditing. In addition, boroughs are required, when requested, to provide TfL with
records and other information relating to the provision of financial assistance for the purpose of conducting an audit. This may include access to documents and interviews with
relevant personnel.

To comply with general audit requirements, boroughs must ensure that invoices can be linked to the programmes they relate to. Charges for work carried out by in-house borough organisations and staff time spent on approved projects must be supported by documentation certifying the amounts claimed and identifying the relevant schemes or interventions."

With this in mind please supply the following information relating to the London Borough of Hillingdon.

1. The name, amount request, submitted as per proforma C and actual amount spent and state FY year of sample schemes.

2. Were any exceptions, discrepancies and or anomalies discovered, if so which schemes

3. If issues relating to question 3 were discovered was a full audit conducted?

Excluding the London Borough of Hillingdon

4. Have any exceptions, discrepancies and or anomalies discovered in any London Borough at any time, if so state which boroughs and which year or years which these were discovered

5. Has a full audit of any borough been carried out at any time, if so which boroughs and which year or years did it or they take place and cite the relevant borough that was fully audited.

6. If a member of the public or officer of any Borough has concerns relating to potential abuse and or misappropriation of LIP funding, what is the process for raising the issue with TfL?

If you require any further information or clarification, please revert

Yours faithfully,

M Doyle

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Doyle

 

TfL Ref: FOI-1023-1920

 

Thank you for your email which we received on 5 July 2019 asking for
information about LIP funding audits. Your request has been considered in
accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act
and TfL’s information access policy. 

 

To enable us to assist with your request, please provide a time period
that you would like us to cover.

 

Please note that the 20 working day deadline for responding to your
request will depend on when we receive satisfactory additional
information to help clarify your request.  If we hear nothing further from
you by 29 July 2019 your response will be treated as a new request.

 

In the meantime, if you have any queries or would like to discuss your
request, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Eva Hextall

FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FMs Hextall,

TfL Ref: FOI-1023-1920

Would you please supply the information for the period of 2014 to date.

Yours sincerely,

M Doyle

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Doyle

 

TfL Ref: FOI-1023-1920

 

Thank you for your further email.

 

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

 

A response will be sent to you by 6 August 2019.

 

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

 

Eva Hextall

FOI Case Officer

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Doyle

 

Further to my email below, we are unsure what information you are asking
for in question 1. Please provide a more detailed description of the
information you’re seeking together with any other details you think might
help us locate the information you require.

 

And as for question 3, we presume you are referring to question 2.

 

Please note that the 20 working day deadline for responding to your
request will depend on when we receive satisfactory additional information
to help clarify your request. 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Eva Hextall

FOI Case Officer

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Ms Hextall,

In reference to question 1 the name would be the scheme name (s) and or designation(s) which the application for funding allocation would have been made in pro form A and subsequently justified in pro forma C and which in turn would have been checked by the sponsoring officer as part a parcel of the process of VOWD evaluation after submission of pro forma C. A sample scheme from pro forma C would be chosen in which certified invoices and justified costs checked and potentially a site visit to verify work done.

As there can be bleed over from FYs I think it would be best to stick to the spending justification for the pro forma Cs and leave the pro forma a out of the equation.

Cost justification may or may not be granular and be a mixture of individual scheme specific costs and or consolidated costs covering the segment for instance in 2016/17 11 implemented schemes were claimed against under freight and controlled parking - new zones implemented by Hillingdon in pro forma c. One or more of the 11 schemes schemes implemented may have been visited but the cost of the whole segment of 11 schemes would have examined as the amount would have been under £100k and the granular costs may have been difficult to differentiate.

Essentially the sponsoring officer examined a sample scheme (s) and would have been presented with the VOWD certified invoices and if applicable internal costs and would have carried out checks. In the case in the current FY due in within a week it would be Mr Khan who has recently taken over the role previously held by Mr Nash who would have been responsible for the previous 2 FYs.

In relation to Q1 I can give an example response
London Borough of Hillingdon.

FY 2016/17

Area - freight and controlled parking - implemented parking zones

Scheme(s) checked - Individual scheme (designation and or location) or it could be all 11 schemes as a list of designations or locations

VOWD £xx,xxx.xx

Was VOWD checked against supporting certified invoices and if applicable internal costs for the sample scheme yes/no.

Exceptions, discrepancies and or anomalies discovered? yes/no - if yes what were they

Outcome result of exceptions: no action taken, partial or full audit made to which the outcome was: (brief statement)

Yes Q3 relates to Q2

If there are any problems please ask Mr Khan for my telephone number or request that he call me.

Yours sincerely,

M Doyle

FOI, Transport for London

6 Atodiad

Dear Mr Doyle

 

TfL Ref: FOI-1023-1920

 

Thank you for your email which we received on 8 July 2019 asking for
information about local implementation plans (LIP) funding relating to the
London Borough of Hillingdon.

 

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 do hold the information you require. You asked for:

 

Would you please supply the information for the period of 2014 to date.

 

1. The name, amount request, submitted as per proforma C and actual amount
spent and state FY year of sample schemes.

 

The attached spreadsheet details the name, value of work done (VOWD) and
amount claimed / approved for every LIP Corridor scheme undertaken by
Hillingdon since 2014. Also attached are the Proforma C returns submitted
to TfL since 2014.

 

Please note that in accordance with TfL’s obligations under Data
Protection legislation 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 legislation, specifically the first
principle 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 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.

 

2. Were any exceptions, discrepancies and or anomalies discovered, if so
which schemes

 

No exceptions, discrepancies and or anomalies have been discovered.

 

3. If issues relating to question 2 were discovered was a full audit
conducted?

 

No issues relating to question 2 were discovered.

 

Excluding the London Borough of Hillingdon

 

4. Have any exceptions, discrepancies and or anomalies discovered in any
London Borough at any time, if so state which boroughs and which year or
years which these were discovered

 

No exceptions, discrepancies and or anomalies have been discovered in any
London Borough receiving LIP funding.

 

5. Has a full audit of any borough been carried out at any time, if so
which boroughs and which year or years did it or they take place and cite
the relevant borough that was fully audited.

 

Boroughs who have been audited by TfL Finance are as follows:

 

·         Southwark 2015

·         Brent 2016

·         Westminster 2016

·         Greenwich 2018

 

6. If a member of the public or officer of any Borough has concerns
relating to potential abuse and or misappropriation of LIP funding, what
is the process for raising the issue with TfL?

 

If a member of public suspects potential abuse and or misappropriation of
LIP funding they should in the first instance contact TfL and provide
suitable evidence. TfL will then investigate and provide a suitable
response. If that is not deemed satisfactory the matter can be raised with
the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable
to access it for some reason, please do not hesitate 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

 

Eva Hextall

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 Ms Hextall,

Many thanks for your reply, however it seems that the Proforma C for YE 2016 and YE 2017 appear to be identical. However there are just a couple of key figures I am interested in and just need you to confirm the numbers

The figure supplied for New Zones Implemented for YE 2017 in the figures you provided is 10. I believe it should be 11

In relation to "waiting and loading reviews" the number stated is 25. I believe it should be 177

Would you please confirm the number of new zones Implemented and waiting and loading reviews for YE 2017

An would you kindly clarify if "waiting and loading reviews" form part of the parking management scheme payments or another category of payment

Many Thanks

M Doyle