Woodwater Lane Exeter restrictions

The request was partially successful.

Dear Devon County Council,
Please provide me with the following information regarding the parking restrictions in Woodwater Lane Exeter between Plumtree Drive and Quarry Park Road. Please provide all relevant documents since October 2010
1 Consultation details on the amended lengths to the school keep clear markings.
2 Consultation details on the implementation of no waiting restrictions.
3 Advertisement for the amending and/or removal of school keep clear markings.
4 Advertisement for the implementation of No Waiting restrictions.
5 Approval from HATOC or elected member for amendment to length of school keep clear markings.
6 Approval from HATOC or elected member for implementation of No Waiting restrictions.
7 Copy of TRO detailing changes to School keep clear markings.
8 Copy of TRO containing the implementation of No Waiting restrictions.
9 Copy of works order for changes to road markings, and date works carried out/completed.
10 copy of all communications with Exeter City Council regarding these restrictions.

Yours faithfully,

C Peek

Freedom of Information Office - Mailbox, Devon County Council

Dear Mr Peek

Information Request: 03406

I received your request on 09 January 2013 for information which may be
held by Devon County Council regarding Woodwater Lane, Exeter
restrictions.

You are entitled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to be informed
whether or not the information you have requested is held by Devon County
Council and if so to be given access to that information within 20 working
days (subject to any exemptions).

You should expect to receive a response to your request by 06 February
2013.

Yours sincerely

Rebecca Eden
Information Governance Support Officer

Devon County Council
Customer Relations and Information Governance Team
Room 120
County Hall
Topsham Road
Exeter
EX2 4QD
Tel: 01392 38 3445

Disclaimer: [1]http://www.devon.gov.uk/email.shtml
Applicable to private messages: "Devon County Council accepts no legal
responsibility for the contents of this message. The views expressed do
not reflect those of Devon County Council"

Please be aware that emails may have to be disclosed under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 or the Data Protection Act 1998.

Please note that Devon County Council now publishes most Freedom of
Information and Environmental Information Regulations request responses on
its publication scheme. Details of previous responses are available at
[2]http://www.devon.gov.uk/disclosurelogs-s.... The council requests
that members of the public make use of its disclosure log search facility
before making a Freedom of Information or Environmental Information
Regulations request, as it is possible that the information sought, may
have been disclosed in response to a prior request.

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information Office - Mailbox, Devon County Council

Dear Mr Peek,

 

A response to this request has today been sent directly to your personal
email address.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Vicky Moffat

Information Governance Officer

 

Customer Relations and Information Governance Team

Devon County Council

Room 120

County Hall

Topsham Road

Exeter

EX2 4QD

Tel: 01392 38 4678

Disclaimer: [1]http://www.devon.gov.uk/email.shtml
Applicable to private messages: "Devon County Council accepts no legal
responsibility for the contents of this message. The views expressed do
not reflect those of Devon County Council"

Please be aware that emails may have to be disclosed under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 or the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information Office - Mailbox,
The response provided direct to me is I believe an attempt by officers within DCC to prevent further information becoming public, because it is likely to show further that DCC continues to disregard correct process. Given that I have already provided information to the ICO that you have misled them, and many requests for an internal review can have been shown to be justified because of delays within DCC, so it is inappropriate that these are considered when stating my actions are vexatious. You state that you consider ‘ that the purpose of these requests, including your latest request, is to disrupt the day to day workings of the Council’. This is an insult and slur, I have in fact tried to assist DCC by providing information to cabinet members to try and help DCC avoid further wrongdoing. But I appear to have been ignored. I will be seeking an apology for such comment! The purpose of my requests and the likelihood of them being numerous was explained to your office a year ago, as was why it was necessary to make many of these requests publicly. My purpose has not changed since, I am justified in making these requests to ensure my facts are correct, when published/presented, and your response can only be seen as an attempt to supress information. As you have identified this request is not directly related to my original concerns, although if my suspicions are correct it will show that DCC are continuing to ignore legislation, it will only become relevant to my original requests if that is the case. Perhaps confirm that the information requested is can be made available for an MP to inspect? I will publish your response in full in public so that others can make their own judgment.

Finally I wish to register a request for an internal review into your refusal to provide the information requested

Yours sincerely,

C Peek

C Peek left an annotation ()

DCC response to me, I am sure people can see they are now trying to cover up
.
I have reviewed the above information request and consider that Section
14(1) (Vexatious requests) of the Freedom of Information Act applies
and therefore Devon County Council is not obliged to provide you with
the information requested. My reasons for the application of Section
14(1) are outlined below. I have considered the Information
Commissioner’s guidance in relation to ‘vexatious or repeated
requests’, and in particular, the five questions it is recommended that a
public authority addresses when considering whether or not a request is vexatious. I have outlined my consideration of each of these questions
below.
(1) Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
This information request is the latest in a number of requests you have
made to Devon County Council relating to parking restrictions and
traffic orders. In the last 12 months the Council has received 15
information requests from you on this subject. During this period the
Council has also received a number of information requests from other
individuals on the same subject.
In addition, the Council’s Legal Team and Customer Relations Team
have both also received correspondence from you relating to this issue.
Therefore I consider that the number of information requests and other
correspondence produced by yourself and others on this subject, imply
that this request, which forms part of a series of requests, can fairly be
seen as obsessive.
(2) Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
Considering this particular request in isolation, it would be unlikely that
it could be interpreted as being ‘harassing’ or ‘distressing’. However, as
detailed above, we consider that this request is the latest in a long line
of information requests and correspondence relating to parking
enforcement that we have received from you. In previous
correspondence you have directed accusations of deception and
implied incompetence towards the County Council and it’s officers. The
Council understands that you may have concerns, which to you are
genuine, from which your correspondence on this matter stems,
however we consider that the repeating of these accusations and the
number of information requests you have made to try and prove your
point, are unnecessary and are of a harassing nature.
(3) Would complying with the request impose a significant burden in
terms of expense and distraction?
We estimate that responding to this particular request would take
around 6 hours. Although the request in isolation does not impose a
significant burden or distraction, when it is considered as part of the
long line of requests on this topic that we have received from you, the
impact on the Parking Team service area is much greater.
Many of your previous requests have resulted in requests for internal
reviews and referrals to the Information Commissioner. Therefore we
consider it likely that a providing a response to this request will result in further correspondence from you, which in turn will create a further
distraction for the Parking Team from their day to day business.
(4) Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance and (5)
does it lack any serious purpose or value?
It is apparent that you consider the making of your requests to be for a
serious purpose. However, you are also aware that this issue is now
being investigated externally, and therefore it would seem that the
continuation of requests does not relate to your initial concern. It can
only be assumed therefore, that the purpose of these requests,
including your latest request, is to disrupt the day to day workings of
the Council. In light of this, we do not consider that there is any public
interest in answering this request.

alan m dransfield (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Mr Peek
It is consistently obvious that the DCC are circumventing the FOIA 2000 in the manner they responded to your request.
No doubt if you pursue this to a FTT hearing which would be the next step for you, they would uphold that decision on a court authority GIA/3037/2011 which is their latest little SCAM to legalize their vexatious decisions.
I am know the GIA/3037/2011 backwards because it is MY case authority.

That's why they have thrown THOUSANDS of pounds to defend their actions against my FOIA which is very similar to yours.
You can help by going to the 38degree website and sign my campaign against the dark forces whom are abusing the FOIA 2000.

alan m dransfield (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Colin
It is fairly evident the DCC are now flexing their bullyboy shoulders after they won the Upper Tribunal decision against me. Now you know why the ICO and the DCC threw the kitchen sink at my GIA/3037/2011 hearing. They can now use that as a court authority and you will see a LOT more of section 14 (1) vexatious decisions be handed out like confetti by the DCC and other rogue PA,s
However, all is not dead yet and I can,t believe the Court of Appeal will accept that Ghost Authorities CAN be used by PA/ICO AND the Upper Tribunal. If they do, I will have exhausted the UK Legal System and we will test the water at the European Courts.

What will be VERY interesting to see is if the FTT allow the ICO&DCC to use these 13 Ghost Documents again at the forthcoming trial of a retrial.

C Peek left an annotation ()

Internal review upheld decision that this request was vexatious because it is linked to CPE, and there was me thinking I was finding out about changes to road markings and a a new TRO, I cant see where CPE comes into it, or how there can be any link so long after CPE was introduced. But perhaps there is more to the changes than I thought, (hence the need for an FOI request). Good job there are people at DCC who know that it is linked to CPE, because I didn't think it was! Or is it they are just conspiring to cover everything up, and they can blame all parking issues on the CPE now. Yet more delays while the ICO looks into it.

C Peek left an annotation ()

I thought people may be interested in an update, I submitted a complaint that changes had been made contrary to procedure, please note at no stage have I said that the changes were not appropriate but the process is wrong and undermines the principle's
The reply received today is '

Waiting Restrictions – Woodwater Lane, Exeter -

Thank you for your letter regarding the waiting restrictions in Woodwater Lane, Exeter.

The council is aware of the changes to the lining in Woodwater Lane and these occurred when the road was resurfaced.

The previous school keep clear marking (SKC) was not signed as a mandatory restriction, which is why it was deemed acceptable not to remark it when the road was resurfaced. It was agreed at this time to mark two new advisory school keep clear markings forming part of other future proposals. This was deemed to be the logical way forward as it avoided the need to remove the existing location of the advisory SKC shortly after the road had been resurfaced, leaving a scar on the carriageway.

The adjacent double yellow lines were marked in error at this time, no PCN’s have been issued against them since they were marked. The decision was made not to remove them as it was planned to advertise the traffic regulation order shortly after this time and for the same reason not wanting to remove something leaving scarring to then reinstate it, of course pending consultation. Unfortunately, due to other operational priorities this advertisement has yet to be undertaken, however, it is currently programmed to be advertised within the first quarter of this financial year. When this is undertaken it will follow the statutory consultation and legal processes required to make such a change to restrictions, making it clear what measures are being advertised, also considering all comments and objections received and if appropriate removal of these lines'

Clear contravention of rules/procedure by DCC but no acceptance of this! the officer replying doesn't even seem to understand what an advisory marking is, if its in a TRO how can it be advisory. Stage 2 complaint being submitted, obviously rules don't apply to DCC, officers seen to think they are above the law, perhaps with it being election time the tail should stop wagging the dog.

C Peek left an annotation ()

I will shortly be submitting a complaint to the ICO on this refusal, I had hoped that the complaint I made would have been completed first, but it is clear DCC do not want to come clean, Seven weeks ago I submitted a stage 2 complaint because they failed to acknowledge their actions were illegal and provided further false information, I was offered a meeting with 'skilled officers who can provide responses to my complaints'. I declined particularly as they wished to discuss a case about to go to tribunal where DCC are joining with the information commissioner (although DCC have now located information it has alleged for 18 months didn't exist)
In my Woodwater Lane FOI request DCC have used the vexatious clause to prevent access to information that will again show their disregard for legal process. Having proved time and again that officers are providing false information isn't it time that they were brought to task!

C Peek left an annotation ()

Extract from further response from DCC below, It can be seen that they use the word implementation regarding markings implying a legal process, and try to justify actions as being efficient. it appears legal is second best! Apparently it is acceptable to 'hide' a restriction by placing markings for an identical advisory restriction on top lengths. 'now you see me now you don't!. They have provided a map of the 'proposed' new position of the SCK marks, this also shows the introduction of DYL's in place of SKC, it is obvious that they were intended (and necessary) so it is deceitful to pretend they were placed in error. It is also evident that they did not contact the enforcement body until 4th March 2013, after my formal complaint, had I not have raised the issue there is nothing to suggest that they intended to prevent enforcement.
From DCC.
We agree that coordination of Devon County Council works could have been much improved in this instance. As you have highlighted, for this scheme to be implemented as efficiently as possible, it should have been progressed with the proposed changes to road markings being formally consulted upon, where appropriate, before resurfacing works were undertaken so that they could be enforceable from implementation.
The organisation is constantly striving to improve coordination of work. It is for that reason that it has overhauled its programming and scheme management systems, to minimise similar instances occurring such as this.
The positioning of the new ‘School Keep Clear’ markings was done so in agreement with the local County Member and Highways Officers.
It is acknowledged that it would have been a more efficient process to have undertaken the formal Traffic Regulation Order process prior to the SKC’s being implemented. However, there is no legal requirement to do so. This is described in the Traffic Signs Manuals, as long as the marking is not enforced, i.e., advisory/non mandatory. It is accepted this is currently the case with this marking.
As outlined in our previous correspondence, it was deemed acceptable to implement the markings in conjunction with the resurfacing, to minimise disruption and avoid possible future damage to the road surface, when the marking was revoked and then ‘scrabbled’ off a newly laid surface. However, it is appreciated that the old marking has yet to be legally revoked; this is intended to be done when the new restrictions are advertised.
It also does not justify the implementation of the double yellow lines, that it is fully accepted, should not have been placed, and were done so in error, and therefore are currently unenforceable. However, for the same reason as described earlier (possible unnecessary damage). It was decided not to permantly remove these lines until the formal TRO process has been progresses.
It is not DCC standard practice to place markings without the required TRO, and it is unfortunate that this was the case in the instance of the double yellow lines at this location. We are working with our partners to ensure that issues such as this are minimised in future. Also, it is important to point out that DCC would not instruct its enforcement agents to enforce on a restriction, where it was known that there was no TRO.

C Peek left an annotation ()

My complaint to the ICO has reached the investigation stage at last. This morning I passed information that may be relevant to ICO. Surprise surprise this afternoon this received from DCC
"after carefully considering the Commissioner’s new guidance entitled “Dealing with vexatious requests” and after consulting recent case law on this subject, the Council has decided to overturn its decision to consider Mr Peek’s request as vexatious. As such I have asked that this request be remitted back through the Council’s Freedom of Information Request Handling Procedure".
If an expert on this guidance can explain in simple terms the changes that have resulted in the reversal by DCC for me I would be interested.

C Peek left an annotation ()

Response received contains significant amount of information dated after request was made and showing how the council are trying to correct this matter, but does not provide all the information that should have been available, and is contradictory to responses provided to complaint on this subject. Now awaiting an internal review on this, they certainly know how to delay access to information!