Number of tickets issued Woodhouse Close UB3 1ND

D.J. Doyle made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Hillingdon Borough Council

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

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Dear Hillingdon Borough Council,

Under FOI please supply the following information.

Parking Scheme WOODHOUSE CLOSE HAYES UB3 1NJ Zone HY5 Op time 9AM-10pm Everyday

How many parking tickets have been issued and how many have been paid since the introduction in February 2017.

How many paid permits have been issued

What was the cost of introducing the scheme

What has been the net financial benefit or moreover deficit to Hillingdon council in the first 12 months since this scheme was introduced.

Yours faithfully,

D.J. Doyle

Dear Hillingdon Borough Council,

Please confirm receipt and that you are actioning the request of the 26th June relating to the FOI request for information relating to Number of tickets issued Woodhouse Close UB3 1ND and break down of costs income

Yours faithfully,

D.J. Doyle

Hillingdon Borough Council

Dear D.J. Doyle,

Yes we've received your request and taking steps to provide a response. You
will receive an acknowledgement email in due time. We receive a lot of
request daily.

Yours sincerely,

Bernard Boadu
Technical Assistant

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Residents Services FOI, Hillingdon Borough Council

Dear D.J.Doyle,
I am writing in response to your request for information under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000, received  29/05/2018.
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we have 20 working days to
respond to your request.  Therefore the deadline for our response
is 26/06/2018  however we aim to respond as soon as possible.

If we require further information or clarification from you in order to
assist us in responding to your request, or if we require a fee to be paid
before we can respond we will contact you shortly.

Yours sincerely

 

Michelle Barber

Members Liaison Officer /FOI Officer

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI ., Hillingdon Borough Council

FOI 6732457
Dear D.J. Doyle

I am writing in regards to your request for information below.  I note
from our records that the response to your request is due today. 
Unfortunately we are unable today and there will be a slight delay in our
response.  

Please accept my apologies for this and we will endeavour to respond as
soon as we are able.

If you have any queries regarding this matter please do not hesitate to
contact me.

If you wish to request an internal review of our response you should
write, within 2 months, to:

Office Managing Partner, Legal Services, Civic Centre, High St, Uxbridge,
UB8 1UW (or via email to [1][Hillingdon Borough Council request email] marked for the attention
of the Office Managing Partner).

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely,

Bernard Boadu
Technical Assistant ​

​Legal Services (3E 04)
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge
UB8 1UW
01895 55(6923)

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Ms Barber and Mr Boadu,

Many thanks for your reply and note your informing me of the delay. However, I would be grateful if you could indicate a time frame in which I should receive the now delayed response in order to avoid unnecessary chasing.

Yours sincerely,

D.J. Doyle

FOI ., Hillingdon Borough Council

Good afternoon D.J. Doyle, 
I sent a reminder to the relevant department today informing them that the
request is due today. 
I am yet to receive a response. I'm hoping to receive it tomorrow. I will
chase them further tomorrow and keep you updated. 
Yours sincerely,
Bernard Boadu
Data Protection &
Freedom of Information Officer
Legal Services (3E 04)
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge
UB8 1UW
01895 55(6923)

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI ., Hillingdon Borough Council

FOI 6732457 
​ 
Dear D.J. Doyle

I am writing in response to your request for information below.

As I understand it you are seeking to know:

Q1. How many parking tickets have been issued and how many have been
paid since the introduction in February 2017.
LBH response:  A total of 19 Penalty Charge Notices have been issued
in Woodhouse Close between 27th February 2017 and 29th June 2018.  Fifteen
of these Penalty Charge Notices have been paid.
Q2. How many paid permits have been issued
LBH response:  A total of 13 no. residents parking permits have been
issued.
Q3. What was the cost of introducing the scheme
LBH response:    The cost to implement the signs for the scheme
in Woodhouse Close is £350.
Q4.  What has been the net financial benefit or moreover deficit
to Hillingdon council in the first 12 months since this scheme was
introduced.
LBH response:  Parking management schemes are introduced to support
residents and not with any financial targets in mind.  However, in the
case of HY5, since the scheme was introduced total income of £1540 has
been received from PCNs that have been issued or permits that have been
purchased.  As the cost of implementing signs for the scheme was £350,
this equates to an overall financial benefit of £1190.

If you have any queries regarding this matter please do not hesitate to
contact me.

If you wish to request an internal review of our response you should
write, within 2 months, to:

Office Managing Partner, Legal Services, Civic Centre, High St, Uxbridge,
UB8 1UW (or via email to [1][Hillingdon Borough Council request email] marked for the attention
of the Office Managing Partner).

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely,

Bernard Boadu
Technical Assistant  ​Legal Services (3E 04)
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge
UB8 1UW
01895 55(6923)

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Mr Boadu.,

Is there any news yet and to save chasing , have your colleagues in parking management given you any indication on when I can expect the information. I ask as this juncture I wish to avoid pursuing an internal review request which this system is prompting.

In the meantime have a good weekend

Yours sincerely,

D.J. Doyle

Hillingdon Borough Council

Dear D.J. Doyle,

I have sent a response to you. I sent it at 12:01

FOI 6732457

Dear D.J. Doyle

I am writing in response to your request for information below.

As I understand it you are seeking to know:
Q1. How many parking tickets have been issued and how many have been paid
since the introduction in February 2017.

LBH response: A total of 19 Penalty Charge Notices have been issued in
Woodhouse Close between 27th February 2017 and 29th June 2018. Fifteen of
these Penalty Charge Notices have been paid.

Q2. How many paid permits have been issued

LBH response: A total of 13 no. residents parking permits have been issued.

Q3. What was the cost of introducing the scheme

LBH response: The cost to implement the signs for the scheme in Woodhouse
Close is £350.

Q4. What has been the net financial benefit or moreover deficit to
Hillingdon council in the first 12 months since this scheme was introduced.

LBH response: Parking management schemes are introduced to support
residents and not with any financial targets in mind. However, in the case
of HY5, since the scheme was introduced total income of £1540 has been
received from PCNs that have been issued or permits that have been
purchased. As the cost of implementing signs for the scheme was £350, this
equates to an overall financial benefit of £1190.

If you have any queries regarding this matter please do not hesitate to
contact me.

If you wish to request an internal review of our response you should write,
within 2 months, to:

Office Managing Partner, Legal Services, Civic Centre, High St, Uxbridge,
UB8 1UW (or via email to [Hillingdon Borough Council request email] marked for the attention of
the Office Managing Partner).

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the
right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely,

Bernard Boadu
Technical Assistant
Legal Services (3E 04)
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge
UB8 1UW
01895 55(6923)

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Mr Boadu

I request an internal review due to substantial inaccuracies in what if fundamentally a misleading response.
This response should have never been sent out as the information presented is of such a poor standard that the person who compiled the data is not qualified to make such a statement regarding the net benefit as it is conspicuously false and grossly inaccurate, moreover the concept of setup, incidental, running and lateral costs has been completely ignore or deliberately overlooked.

Would you remind officers of the council that knowingly or negligently supplying information for release that appears it was designed to mislead on or distort information and give false financial costings/income and conspicuously erroneous balances derived by omission or knowingly incomplete without explanation or caveat, is covered under misleading actions and omissions when supplying data at a cost to the borough and therefore residents and is a breach of FOI act and ICO data reporting principles as well as CPRs (which includes councils) and subject to complaint. On this occassion commencing with the ICO and borough auditor without the necessity of going through the internal complaints procedure of LBH first. In this case the officer and department head supplying the information should re-evaluate the response for the following reasons as it is substantially deficient in veracity and unacceptable as a response that fails to stand up to a modicum of scrutiny and in fact indicates serious and avoidable negligence in reporting far below any standards all official bodies have in place.

1. The officer omitted to include the costs of the consultations and relevant meetings which were no doubt significant.

2. The officer omitted to include the internal cost of Hillingdon's substantial legal services department, which includes such things as dealing with all legal requirements of implementation, drafting, issuing and publishing of public notices, adjustment of contract with the service provider, etc

3. In fact the officer in parking management neglected to take into consideration the running cost of their own department along with a myriad of others associated costs in setting up and running the scheme.

4. Q3. Was clear in the requests costs of implementation which given the outcome insist that it was total yet the officer used a small partial cost as the complete cost in their calculation as a total leading to the statement under LBH response being misleading and completely false.

5. There are the standard terms charges relating to the contract with the service provider which would stipulate minimum fees for patrolling, issuing, processing tickets etc.

6. There are administration fees linked to the processing or residents’ permits of which there are only 6 issued paid permits this financial year @ £40 with a least 24 additional free permits being issued clearly indicates that the daily income from permits alone amounts to the enormous sum of 65p per day.

5. As such the costs supplied are knowingly incomplete at best it is therefore a conspicuously false representation and it should never have been made public and fails to come anywhere near the criteria for acceptable information reporting, especially financial.

7. That this information undermines the integrity of the originating department to cost and report any project accurately and raises many questions in this regard when taking this simple exercise into consideration.

8. The information supplied brings into question the integrity in the introduction of this scheme as it indicates that less than 1 penalty is issued and paid each calendar month to which indicates in turn the gross income would be less than £2 per day with the net income after costs being in deficit to the point of uneconomic viability warrant the continuance

9. It seems that LBH parking management is trying very hard to hide the fact that it went ahead to finance and is currently subsidising what is in effect a free on the Public Highway car park isolated from other schemes for a select and privileged number of private house owners in with and average of 2 spaces per property already and 1 more provided by LBH at other residents cost on scheme which the LBH response states benefits all borough residents in order to obfuscate and mislead on all these simple facts.

I trust that this matter will be escalated urgently as due diligence appears to have vacated Hillingdon Council along with veracity of the response supplied. I would also recommend that as your name has been attached to this appalling response, you should consider initiating a formal complaint with Human Resources and your Head of Department regarding being instructed to make a false and misleading statement to the public.

Sincerely

D.J. Doyle

FOI ., Hillingdon Borough Council

Dear D.J. Doyle, 
I have now forwarded this to the Office Managing Partner and he will be in
contact with you in due time. 
Yours sincerely,
Data Protection &
Freedom of Information Officer
Legal Services (3E 04)
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge
UB8 1UW
01895 55(6923)

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FAO Office Managing Partner.,

Please note that the Council records show that in the results of the statutory consultation on the 16th May 2016 the estimated cost of implementing the HY5 scheme would be £2,500. This and other issues relating to previous FOIs relating to parking management and revenue indicate either negligent or deliberate misinformation being given to the public as well as unreasonable procurement procedures and as such there may be similar issues in the relative accounts. Therefore I will be contacting the Auditor in view of lodging an objection relation the the Parking Revenue and Management accounts and that I will be contacting the ICO in relation to this FOI as given the size of discrepancy and overt false nature of the benefit to residence claim, it would be a disservice to borough residents if I did not.

Yours sincerely,

D.J. Doyle

Dear Hillingdon Borough Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Hillingdon Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Number of tickets issued Woodhouse Close UB3 1ND'.

I have not yet received any response to the internal review request in response to the misleading information and statement made to the 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/n...

Please be aware that a complaint has been lodged with the ICO. However this does not remove the obligation to conduct a formal internal review and would appreciate a response and the name of the person conducting that review as there may be yet another conflict of interest

Yours faithfully,

D.J. Doyle

Residents Services FOI, Hillingdon Borough Council

Dear D.J Doyle,

I am writing in response to your request for information under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000, received 27/07/18

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we have 20 working days to
respond to your request.  Therefore the deadline for our response is
24/08/18

If we require further information or clarification from you in order to
assist us in responding to your request, or if we require a fee to be paid
before we can respond we will contact you shortly.

Yours sincerely,

Claire Varley
Members Enquiries & Complaints Coordinator
Residents Services
Hillingdon Council
tel: 6015 external: 01895 556015
[1]www.hillingdon.gov.uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Ms Varley

With regard to the request internal review, it was originally requested on the 29th June which the following replay was received

"Dear D.J. Doyle,
I have now forwarded this to the Office Managing Partner and he will be in
contact with you in due time.
Yours sincerely,
Data Protection &
Freedom of Information Officer
Legal Services (3E 04)
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge
UB8 1UW
01895 55(6923)"

There has been no review or reply since which is underlined by the fact that you have made a false assumption based on the fact that you have not properly appraised yourself the issue or record online to come to that conclusion and that you are in error.

Although given the veracity of information supplied and the information regarding the councils ongoing actions in a number of areas, specifically parking management and enforcement , I am not at all surprised.

I trust now you realise that the Internal review deadline has indeed passed on the 27th July and that the ICO will confirm as much due to your colleague's clear acknowledgement of the request on the 2nd July

Yours sincerely,

D.J. Doyle

Gadawodd D.J. Doyle anodiad ()

The information supplied was in relation to financial costs and benefits false.

An internal review was requested on the 29th June 2018 and Hilligdon has failed to reply as the information has been proven to be misleading. The question here is going to be Is this an isolated case relating to Parking Enforcement and Management or is it a symptom of wider issues, after all even though it was a relatively small scheme, it was a contentious introduction full of legal failings as are the majority of Hillingdon's parking schemes introduced in the past 20 years at least.

It should be noted that around 65% of all public notices issued by Hillingdon in relation to parking restriction schemes in that 20 year period fail to cite the act or relative sections. So it is easy to understand why the council has gone out of their way to cover their failures which this scheme is just one.

The issue has been sent to the ICO

Kim Head, Hillingdon Borough Council

1 Atodiad

Dear D J Doyle,
Attached please find letter in respect of the above.
Yours sincerely,
Kim Head
Executive Officer | London Borough of Hillingdon | Legal Services
3E/04 | DX:  45101 Uxbridge
Tel: 01895 556893 Fax: 01895 250784 | E-mail: [1][email address]

Hillingdon Council routinely monitors the content of emails sent and
received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its
policies and procedures. The contents of this message are for the
attention and use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the
intended recipient or addressee, or the person responsible for sending the
message you may not copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any
part of it in any way. To do so may be unlawful. If you receive this email
by mistake please advise the sender immediately. Where opinions are
expressed they are not necessarily those of the London Borough of
Hillingdon. Service by email is not accepted unless by prior agreement.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Mr Glen Egan

To be straight to the point, your internal review is unsatisfactory to the point that it is clear that your professional position is that the supplying of misleading information in relation to costs in the face of what is already on record and above all common sense is proper practice by Hillingdon Council. And I think it should be clear th public see's your statement

"Dear D J Doyle

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Ref. No.: 6732457 - Request for Internal Review
Thank you for submitting a request for an Internal Review under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.
I note that you submitted a request on 29 May 2018 for information concerning the Parking
Scheme at Woodhouse Close, Hayes, UB3 1NJ.
The FOI Team replied to your request on 29 June 2018. Later on that day you requested an
Internal Review.
I have considered your request and relevant guidance from the Information Commissioner (ICO).
My responsibility when conducting an Internal Review is to ensure that you receive all information
to which you are entitled and, that if any information is withheld, this is done in accordance with the
law.
I note that the Council has answered each question that you submitted, but that you consider the
response to contain "substantial inaccuracies in what is a fundamentally misleading response".
You also consider that Council officers have been "negligent" in their reply.
As stated above, the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is to entitle you to be
provided with information held by the Council. The Act does not provide a mechanism for the
accuracy of the Council's information to be analysed or questioned.
I am therefore satisfied that you have been provided with all information that you have requested. I
do not therefore uphold your request for an Internal Review.
Finally, I wish to thank you for requesting an Internal Review and to advise you that you have the
right to appeal my decision to the Information Commissioner (ICO. Such an appeal must be made
within two months. "

I'm sure that the majority of the electorate will find this response very interesting to the point of being contemptuous of the truth when it is publicised in due course. Simply officers should not knowingly make misleading statements and I have noted that you deliberately or negligently failed to correct the information. and this is a inept brush off which indicates that level of expertise in the legal department and a disgraceful response from a trained solicitor.

The simple fact is that the council has not fulfilled the request as the costs are in fact fabricated and misleading in the response and given your actions it can only be deemed as being deliberate.

The FOI is not a solicitor's game of pretense in the face of the truth and trust you take this on board sooner rather than later because you have indeed failed in the role.

Yours sincerely,

D.J. Doyle

Gadawodd D.J. Doyle anodiad ()

Again Hillingdon Council is misleading by omitting to address the costs of the scheme as the original response statement was and remains completely false. You would think that they would correct that statement and yet chose not to. That this type of official behavior in an FOI is of serious concern to all residents and businesses in the borough

The fact that a trained solicitor has responded in such a manner indicates that resources are be wasted on the legal department as it is plain to see that idiotic "Norwegian Blue" ( Dead Parrot) positions of defense are standard practice in Hillingdon Council when questioned on the veracity of the information supplied or indeed actions taken by the council.

Question again is this; Why make such a false statemented in relation to such a small scheme and then go out of the way to obfuscate that fact and risk the ICO coming down on them?

Hillingdon are now knowing misleading in their response, so what else are they misleading the public on? and why does it need a legal department the size of a conglomerate and the fact that the actions of that department appearing to be bringing the council's integrity into question.

The matter is now with the ICO and another FOI request in relation to advertising Parking CCTV contract as Social care has also been used as an example.

Glen Egan, Hillingdon Borough Council

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Doyle
Please find attached correspondence with reference to the above.
Yours sincerely
Glen Egan
Glen Egan
Office Managing Partner | London Borough of Hillingdon | Legal Services
3E/04
Tel: 01895 277602 | Fax: 01895 250784 | E-mail:
[1][email address]
Hillingdon Council routinely monitors the content of emails sent and
received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its
policies and procedures. The contents of this message are for the
attention and use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the
intended recipient or addressee, or the person responsible for sending the
message you may not copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any
part of it in any way. To do so may be unlawful. If you receive this email
by mistake please advise the sender immediately. Where opinions are
expressed they are not necessarily those of the London Borough of
Hillingdon. Service by email is not accepted unless by prior agreement.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Mr Egan,

Your response (at the behest of the ICO) appears to be lacking in substance and above all erroneous at best as again there are significant and substantial omissions of related costs. It can be compared with a driver stating their car manages 1000 miles to the gallon and £80 a year to run. When questioned the drivers manager steps in and states that they don't keep all the receipts, other people put fuel in and despite those omissions the original statement remains correct. I should remind you of what was clearly stated on the 29th June

"LBH response: Parking management schemes are introduced to support
residents and not with any financial targets in mind. However, in the
case of HY5, since the scheme was introduced total income of £1540 has
been received from PCNs that have been issued or permits that have been
purchased. As the cost of implementing signs for the scheme was £350,
this equates to an overall financial benefit of £1190."

This is why your response to the ICO also falls short of being remotely reliable and above all a transparent response: Legislative restrictions stipulate that any income from parking/traffic management is ring fenced into that area and any surplus funds can only be used in related projects and linked services. This means that money only goes into this area and cannot be used for any other department or internal service unless it is specifically related to any parking/traffic management initiative. Therefore any related external or internal services provided to this specific area are by standard practice charged in order that those departments or in fact any other departments budgets are not adversely affected by resources being funnelled into uncharged services for a cash cow department.

However there is a huge failure of due diligence underlining the analogy and that the response a woefully erroneous and in fact when you take estimates to a cabinet member by an officer of the council into consideration, your response is by default misleading as funding was obtained from a 3rd party authority in order to implement the scheme. In the Hillingdon official cabinet member report of the 16th May 2016 it clearly states on the Cabinet Member Report 16 May 2016 Page 3 of 4

"Financial Implications
The cost to implement the proposed Parking Management Scheme in Woodhouse Close is
estimated to cost £2,500. These costs can be funded from the 2016/17 LIP budget subject to
the usual Council's release protocols."

The simple fact is that at best your response to the ICO is intrinsically erroneous at best. Moreover any financial officer worth their salt would be insisting interdepartmental charging for any service rendered to parking/traffic management in order that those funds are not lost and reclaimed and drain financial resources for key areas or in fact any area. It is clear that the position you have chosen to take is that of a legal expert rather than a provider of information and underlines the fact that mixing the 2 is far more damaging than beneficial to the council

I suggest you reassess your response to the ICO immediately

Yours sincerely,

M.J Doyle on behalf of
D.J. Doyle

Glen Egan, Hillingdon Borough Council

Dear Mr Doyle,
Thankyou for your email.
I believe that the Council has dealt with your request in accordance with
the law and has provided you with the information to which you are
entitled.
I will , of course, respond to any further contact from the ICO, but
otherwise the Council considers this matter to be closed. 
Yours sincerely,
Glen Egan
 
I beleive that 
Glen Egan
Office Managing Partner | London Borough of Hillingdon | Legal Services
3E/04
Tel: 01895 277602 | Fax: 01895 250784 | E-mail:
[1][email address]

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd D.J. Doyle anodiad ()

Once again Mr Egan has decided that obstruction and misleading are the best course of action when out is apparent that the information supplied was in fact incomplete and misleading.

If Mr Egan chose instead to render a proper correction and apology maybe the council would not be subject to further scrutiny from the relevant authorities