Appeals accepted and rejected by Coventry CC/Adjudicator

Martin H Dix made this Freedom of Information request to Coventry City Council

The request was refused by Coventry City Council.

Dear Paula Gordon - Coventry City Council,

Many thanks for your speedy response to my request re PCN's issued at Cuckoo Lane, Coventry.

Would now kindly supply the following:

The total number of appeals 2005 upto the date of this request.

The number of rejections by Coventry CC.
The number of accepted appeals by Coventry CC.

The number of appeals rejected by the Adjudicator.
The number of accepted appeals by the Adjudicator.

Yours faithfully,

Martin H Dix

Dear Coventry City Council,

Please also supply copies of successful appeals ruled on by the adjudicator

Yours faithfully,

Martin H Dix

Coventry City Council

 

Dear Mr Dix,

Acknowledgement of Freedom of Information Request Ref 20037753

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 which I received on 22/12/2011 00:00.  Your request
will be processed under the terms of the Act.

In line with the Act we will respond to you within 20 working days of the
date that we received your request.  If there are any problems with this
request that may delay the dissemination of information, we will contact
you immediately.

Yours sincerely

Information Governance Officer

Please direct queries to:

Information Governance Team

Tel: 024 7683 3305

Fax: 024 7683 3395

[1][Coventry City Council request email]

[2]www.coventry.gov.uk

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this
e-mail in error, you are requested to contact the sender

All e-mails are monitored by Coventry City Council IT Security, using
M@ilMeter and Star Filtering Services.

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Coventry City Council.

show quoted sections

Dear Coventry City Council,

Due to the Xmas period, which obviously involved holiday office closures, please advise on what date will the statutory 20 working day period be reached.

Yours faithfully,

Martin H Dix

Gilbert, Sue, Coventry City Council

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that the 20 working day period deadline will be reached on 25 January 2012.

Regards.

Sue Gilbert
Information Governance Assistant
Information Governance Team
Democratic Services
Customer & Workforce Services
Coventry City Council
Room 21a Lower Ground Floor
Council House
Coventry CV1 5RR

Phone: (024) 7683 3323
Fax: (024/ 7683 3395

show quoted sections

Robinson, Bernie, Coventry City Council

Dear Mr Dix

 

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Extension

 

I am writing to advise you that the time limit for responding to your
request for information, needs to be extended.

 

The Act allows us 20 working days to respond to your request from the date
of its receipt.  However, it is occasionally necessary to extend the
statutory deadline, to consider the public interest or where the
information requested is particularly voluminous and complex.

 

On this occasion, the Council needs to extend the response time for your
request by a further 20 working days.

 

I hope to let you have a response by 20^th February 2012, and will keep
you informed of any further delay.  If you are not happy with the
extension please contact me on 024 7683 1201.

 

I hope you feel that our response meets your request.  However you have a
right to make representations about the outcome or handling of your
request – in the first instance this must be made in writing within 40
working days of the date of this letter, to the Council's Information
Governance Team at:

 

Information Governance Team

Council House, Room 21a

Earl Street, Coventry.

CV1 5RR

[1][Coventry City Council request email] 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Bernie Robinson (Mrs)

Business Support Officer

 

Coventry City Council

City Services and Development Directorate

Civic Centre 4 Floor 13

Much Park Street

Coventry

CV1 2PY

 

Telephone: 02476831201

 

Working Days: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday

 

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this
e-mail in error, you are requested to contact the sender

All e-mails are monitored by Coventry City Council IT Security, using
M@ilMeter and Star Filtering Services.

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Coventry City Council.

show quoted sections

Robinson, Bernie, Coventry City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Dix

 

Please find attached response to your Freedom of Information request.

 

Regards

Bernie

 

Bernie Robinson (Mrs)

Business Support Officer

 

Coventry City Council

City Services and Development Directorate

Civic Centre 4 Floor 13

Much Park Street

Coventry

CV1 2PY

 

Telephone: 02476831201

 

Working Days: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday

 

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this
e-mail in error, you are requested to contact the sender

All e-mails are monitored by Coventry City Council IT Security, using
M@ilMeter and Star Filtering Services.

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Coventry City Council.

show quoted sections

Martin H Dix left an annotation ()

Futher to our conversation by telephone today.

The response received on WDTK site is unacceptable, before requesting an Internal Review I would like to give Coventry CC the opportunity to correct their reply with the details of PCN's accepted/rejected by CCC and the Adjudicator, which included the request for copies of Adjudicaors decisons.

I understand there has been an upgrade of your computer systems which could be the reason for the negative response, however now that the upgrade has completed there is no reason to withhold said information.

I look forward to a prompt reply,

Sincerely,

Dear Robinson, Bernie,

Since the upgrade of your computer system it should be a simple matter of interrogating the main frame to retrieve the information requested.
I advised by telephone that I would be prepared to accept just, copies of the Adjudicators decisions.
Before requesting an Internal Review I would appreciate an early response.

Yours sincerely,

Martin H Dix

Robinson, Bernie, Coventry City Council

Thank you for your email.

My working days are Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. If your email
requires an urgent response please email Jane Simpson.

 

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this
e-mail in error, you are requested to contact the sender

All e-mails are monitored by Coventry City Council IT Security, using
M@ilMeter and Star Filtering Services.

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Coventry City Council.

show quoted sections

Dear Coventry City Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Coventry City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Appeals accepted and rejected by Coventry CC/Adjudicator'.

[You state the following pasted from one of your replies.

" Whilst I am able to provide you with the number of appeals received in total by Coventry City Council I cannot be specific as to the location that they relate to because this information is currently not available".

You have advised re upgrade of your computer system over a period of weeks, that has now been completed.
I have spoken to your office on several occasions and even reduced my request to only copies of Adjudicators decisions of which you advised there are 4.

My request has been outstanding since December 2011.

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

Yours faithfully,

Martin H Dix

Davies, Carl, Coventry City Council

Dear Mr Dix

 

Thank you for your email received 14 February 2012 requesting an internal
review of Coventry City Council's handling of your Freedom of Information
Request:  'Appeals accepted and rejected by Coventry CC/Adjudicator'

 

The matter is receiving attention and the Council will respond to you
shortly.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Carl Davies

Information Governance Assistant

Democratic Services

Coventry City Council

Room 21A Lower Ground Floor

Email: [email address]

Phone:(024) 7683 2565

 

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this
e-mail in error, you are requested to contact the sender

All e-mails are monitored by Coventry City Council IT Security, using
M@ilMeter and Star Filtering Services.

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Coventry City Council.

show quoted sections

Harrison, Iain, Coventry City Council

5 Attachments

Dear Mr Dix

 

Please find attached the Council's response to your recent request for
review.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Iain Harrison

Information Governance Officer,
Information Governance Team,

Democratic Services, 
Customer & Workforce Services,

Coventry City Council
Room 21a, Lower Ground Floor,

Council House,
Earl Street
Coventry. CV1 5RR

 

Telephone No: 024 7683 3305

Fax No:          024 7683 3395

 

[1]www.coventry.gov.uk 

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this
e-mail in error, you are requested to contact the sender

All e-mails are monitored by Coventry City Council IT Security, using
M@ilMeter and Star Filtering Services.

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Coventry City Council.

show quoted sections

Dear Harrison, Iain,

With regard to the copies of parking appeal Decisions you have provided they have all been wrongly and ridiculously redacted not least to the utter madness of redacting the case reference numbers.

Every parking appeal Decision is a public document viewable freely in its original form on the two public registers maintained by TPT (formerly NPAS) and, in London, by PATAS. Every PATAS Decision is accessible on line and searchable in different ways.

Coventry Council has no authority to interfere with these public documents by redacting any of their content.

Please now provide unadulterated copies of the Appeal Decisions you have provided and ensure that you cease your wrongful conduct in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Martin H Dix

Dear Harrison, Iain,

The following may assist you in your task:

Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable
Case Reference:
211047952A

Appellant:
Mr Nicholas Cassian Warner

Authority:
Westminster

VRM:
X622ELF

PCN:
WM68969662

Contravention Date:
02 Jul 2011

Contravention Time:
14:15

Contravention Location:
Penfold Street

Penalty Amount:
£130.00

Contravention:
Parked in a restricted street

Decision Date:
10 Nov 2011

Adjudicator:
Neeti Dhanani

Appeal Decision:
Allowed

Direction:
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons:
The appellant appeared at the hearing before me together with his mother who was driving the vehicle at the time and reiterated the points made in his appeal. In addition the appellant produced a copy of the "Park Right" leaflet issued by the Authority. The leaflet includes a paragraph dealing with enforcement and states:
"We use fixed CCTV and mobile CCTV vehicles to enforce parking rules in situations where it's dangerous or impractical for our CEOs to patrol or where other methods of enforcement have not been effective ...".

It is admitted that the vehicle was at the location.

I have considered the various issues raised by the appellant, however for the purpose of this appeal it is not necessary for me to address every point raised by the appellant.

The Appellant refers to the ICO (the Information Commission) code of conduct.

The appellant also refers to the provisions of Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA) which requires that the Authority must have regard to the Statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State and published under section 87 of the TMA. However it is made clear in the guidance that it has no special authority in regard to matters of legal interpretation and that the Authority should use the guidance in conjunction with the Regulations that give effect to the parking provisions in Part 6 of the TMA.

The legislation does not require signs warning of camera enforcement to be displayed.

In any event the Authority has confirmed that there are signs affixed to some camera enforcement poles, and the Authority has produced the result of its survey to show that CCTV enforcement is sufficiently signed throughout the borough.

The appellant has produced evidence as to the road markings and contends that the markings do not comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002.

The Authority submits that the yellow lines are clearly visible and relies on the principle of "de minimus non curat lex". This is a legal principle which basically means that law does not concern itself with trifles; so that even if a technical violation of a law appears to exist according to the letter of the law, if the effect is too small to be of consequence, the violation of the law will not be considered as a sufficient cause of action, whether in civil or criminal proceedings.

I have considered the road marking. I accept that the marking is visible but the lines are such that it is impossible to make out whether the line is a very thick single yellow line or a double yellow line. In my view the road marking is inadequate and does not substantially comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002. I do not consider the deviation from the requirements to be de minimus. The lines are very thick and they seem to have been painted over so that the lines are joined to form a very thick single yellow line. Accordingly I allow the appeal.

I make no finding as to the information in the Park Right leaflet save to say that, the publication of information by the Authority as to its methods of enforcement raises a legitimate expectation in the public that the Authority will comply with the its own published information. In this case the Authority has given no explanation as to why it saw fit to enforce contraventions using CCTV enforcement.

The appellant indicated at the hearing that may submit an application for costs

Yours sincerely,

Martin H Dix

Harrison, Iain, Coventry City Council

Dear Mr Dix

Further to your email below, and subsequent correspondence from you on 7th March, I have raised the matter with the Parking Services team.

They have confirmed that Coventry City Council does not maintain, hold or have access to any such register you cite.

Regarding your point about registers of decisions, I have also discussed this issue with the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT).

TPT has confirmed that 'example cases and decisions' are available to view by the general public via their web pages.

I have also viewed the TPT web site, located at:

http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk...

Example decisions are located specifically (for various categories of decision) at:

http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk...

TPT have also confirmed that they do maintain a register of all decisions, available to be inspected at their offices (address can be located via the above web pages).

However, this register is not directly accessible online by the public and the example decisions published clearly do not represent a searchable register.

I note your comments regarding the access rights granted by the TPT and other organisations-who operate their registers under specific (sometimes regional) legislation.

I have further consulted the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) regarding access rights to such tribunal decisions information, when it is held by other public authorities (such as the Council).

I would advise that the Council holds the requested information for parking enforcement purposes and not for any wider disclosure reasons and the exemption provisions of the Freedom of Information Act would legitimately apply, as cited already.

This was outlined in the Council's response, which cited reasons for exemption of certain information.

In summary, the Council responded to your request for information and subsequently reviewed its response.

Further information held by the Council was provided to you on review, subject to exemptions that apply regarding personally-identifiable information (which can include information that allows living individuals to be identified, and does not just include names and addresses), under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Further rights of appeal have been outlined to you and the Council has nothing further to add to its previous responses.

Yours sincerely

Iain Harrison
Information Governance Officer,
Information Governance Team,
Democratic Services,
Customer & Workforce Services,
Coventry City Council
Room 21a, Lower Ground Floor,
Council House,
Earl Street
Coventry. CV1 5RR

Telephone No: 024 7683 3305
Fax No: 024 7683 3395

www.coventry.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Adam Rowstron left an annotation ()

Why go through so much effort and call so many people to withhold something so trivial? Unless there is something to hide maybe?????...........

Dear Harrison, Iain,

Thank you for your eventual response, I will now take it to the information commissioner

Yours sincerely,

Martin H Dix

Coventry City Council

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at welly-5.star.net.uk.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<[email address]>:
Sorry, I wasn't able to establish an SMTP connection. (#4.4.1)
I'm not going to try again; this message has been in the queue too long.

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Return-Path: <[FOI #97770 email]>
Received: (qmail 30287 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2012 11:34:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp-in-2.star.net.uk) (10.200.12.2)
by welly-5.star.net.uk with SMTP; 14 Mar 2012 11:34:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 4192 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2012 11:34:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com) (195.245.231.135)
by smtp-in-2.star.net.uk with SMTP; 14 Mar 2012 11:34:38 -0000
Return-Path: <[FOI #97770 email]>
Received: from [85.158.139.19:54535] by server-5.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id 4D/AF-13566-B32806F4; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:34:19 +0000
X-Env-Sender: [FOI #97770 email]
X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-178.messagelabs.com!1331724859!13318415!1
X-Originating-IP: [89.238.145.74]
X-SpamReason: No, hits=0.5 required=7.0 tests=BODY_RANDOM_LONG,
ML_RADAR_SPEW_LINKS_18,spamassassin:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.5; banners=-,-,coventry.gov.uk
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 28721 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2012 11:34:19 -0000
Received: from wildfire.ukcod.org.uk (HELO wildfire.ukcod.org.uk) (89.238.145.74)
by server-2.tower-178.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 14 Mar 2012 11:34:19 -0000
Received: from foi by wildfire.ukcod.org.uk with local (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <[FOI #97770 email]>)
id 1S7mTC-0003jb-OM
for [email address]; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:34:18 +0000
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:34:18 +0000
From: Martin H Dix <[FOI #97770 email]>
To: "Harrison, Iain" <[email address]>
Message-Id: <[email address]>
Subject: Re: FW: (UNCLASSIFIED) YOUR REQUEST FOR INTERNAL REVIEW (20037753)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Dear Harrison, Iain,

Thank you for your eventual response, I will now take it to the
information commissioner

Yours sincerely,

Martin H Dix

show quoted sections

Dear Coventry City Council,
Attn Mr I Harrison,
As the content of the information contained in redacted information contained the gist of the information I was seeking, I have decided not to pursue the matter with the ICO, however for future reference that will not be the case.
The only redaction left in place was he appellants name.

FYI, the following is the way you should act in the future.

Dear Mr Dix

Further to my e-mail of 17th May, I have now reviewed 5 of the 6 files
that you requested. I am of the opinion that the file contents
appropriately redacted should be made available to you.

I am attaching the first file relating to one of the appeals in
connection with Somerset Place. Please note that where the appellant
has written in handwriting this information has been reproduced in
typewritten format.

My reason for sending this first file separately is that you will see
that there is some information which once redacted leaves only standard
communication. Before we work through the remaining files to redact
them it would be helpful if you could please confirm whether it is only
the Adjudicator's decision that you are seeking or whether you wish to
see the entire file.

Sue Aggett
Service Lead - Legal and Democratic Services
Solicitor to the Council and Monitoring Officer
Teignbridge District Council
Forde House, Newton Abbot, TQ12 4XX
01626 215163
e-mail: [email address]
website:www.teignbridge.gov.uk

Yours faithfully,

Martin H Dix

Adam Rowstron left an annotation ()

I like this

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Coventry City Council only: