BP and BP Archive

Madeleine Hodgson made this Freedom of Information request to University of Warwick

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

The request was partially successful.

Dear University of Warwick,

I respectfully request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.) between members of staff of the BP Archive, located in the Modern Records Centre building, and staff members of the University. “Staff members of the University” in this case includes any and all members of Security Services, and the following staff members: Nigel Thrift, Ken Sloan, Mark Kennell, Mike Glover, Jo Horsburgh, Peter Dunn, Richard Lambert, Stuart Croft, Roberta Wooldridge Smith, Lucy Taylor, Ian Rowley, James Brecken, and Kelly Parkes-Harrison. The part of this request pertains to the period between June 22, 2015, and September 1, 2015. Particular attention should be paid to the period June 30 – July 3, 2015, and during those days, the request should be broadened to include any members of the University staff which the Archive would normally consult with on a day-to-day basis.
Correspondence between the following members of University staff and any representative of BP plc: Nigel Thrift, Ken Sloan, Mark Kennell, Mike Glover, Jo Horsburgh, Peter Dunn, Richard Lambert, Stuart Croft, Roberta Wooldridge Smith, Lucy Taylor, Ian Rowley, James Brecken, and Kelly Parkes-Harrison, which includes the word or phrase: “divestment”, “divest”, “disinvestment”, “BP Archive”, “security”, “occupation”, “fossil free”, “Shard”, or “University Council”. The date range for this part of the request is from April 1, 2015 to September 10, 2015.
To know why the MRC building was transferred from the ownership of the University of Warwick to the then-Trustees of the University on July 31, 1996. To know if the land has since been transferred to further Trustees since that initial transfer.
To know how much rent BP is paying for the lease of the BP Archive (title number WM578377), and who the rent is paid to. If the rent is paid to a nominal recipient and then transferred on from that recipient, I request that information too.
To see any further agreements between the University and BP which are not accessible through the Land Registry, from 1990 to the present day.
To know who pays for the running costs of the MRC, and the BP Archive (e.g. security, electricity, wear-and-tear).

I would appreciate any information on these matters you are able to provide. I understand that this information does not have to be in document form unless specifically requested, and that it is the department’s responsibility to provide me with the information I require.

If you need any clarification, please don’t hesitate to contact me by responding to this email.

I would like to receive the information electronically where possible. I will be able to pick up any hard documents from the Legal Team’s office on campus.

If my request is denied in whole or in part, I request that you justify all deletions and rejections by reference to specific exemptions under the Act. I also expect you to release all non-exempt material. I reserve the right to appeal any decision you make.

Please confirm in writing that you have received this request at the earliest opportunity. You are required under statute to respond within 20 working days. As such, I look forward to your response by Oct. 16.

Yours faithfully,

Madeleine Hodgson

infocompliance, Resource, University of Warwick



Thank you for your email which has been received by the University Legal
Compliance Officer. 

The University undertakes to respond to Freedom of Information requests
within 20 working days and to Data Protection requests within 40 calendar
days. 

Thank you

Legal Compliance Team

infocompliance, Resource, University of Warwick

Dear Ms Hodgson,

The University sent the below email requesting clarification on 25th
September 2015 but is yet to receive a response.

If we do not receive a response within the next 5 working days we will
assume you no longer wish to pursue your request and will close your case.

Kind Regards

The Legal Compliance Team
________________________________________

From: infocompliance, Resource
Sent: 25 September 2015 10:31
To: [FOI #293270 email]
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - BP and BP Archive

Dear Ms Hodgson,

Thank you for your email requesting information from the University of
Warwick. In order to process your request it will be necessary to receive
some additional information from you to ensure that we understand your
request correctly.

* In reference to the part of your request which asks for correspondence
between a number of staff members and any representatives of BP plc
which included a number of words or phrases, please could you clarify
whether these words or phases are in relation to something specific or
whether you want all correspondence during that time period that
contains the listed words and phrases? The University would like to
draw to your attention how extensive this part of your request could
potentially be as the word or phrases may arise frequently within
general correspondence. For example the word 'occupation' is an
ambiguous word - it could be in relation to a protest or in relation
to job occupation or in relation to tenancy of a property. All of
these examples are issues the University deals with on a daily basis
and therefore the way in which your request is worded is
quite extensive and could potentially exceed the statutory time limit
in which it is obliged to work up to in response to Freedom of
Information requests. Therefore, please confirm whether the words and
phrases provided are freestanding or in relation to something specific
and if the latter, please provide, in as much detail, in relation to
what?
* For the purposes of this request, please can you provide clarification
as to what you mean by 'further agreements' when you ask 'To see any
further agreements between the University and BP which are not
accessible through the Land Registry, from 1990 to the present day.'
Please define 'Further agreements.'

Please note that public authorities are not obliged to work past the
appropriate costs limit under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000. This is currently £450, which equates to 18 hours of staff time
calculated at £25 an hour as set out in the Freedom of Information and
Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. Your
request is quite extensive and from our preliminary assessment, in its
current format, it is likely to exceed the costs limits. Therefore it is
advised for you to submit a refined request when providing the above
clarification. Please contact the Administrative Officer (Compliance) at
[University of Warwick request email] to discuss how it may be possible to refine
your request.
 
If you do submit a refined request, the University will treat it as a
substitute request to your original request below. In the absence of a
refined request, the University will send an official response to your
original request, engaging the costs limit exemption under section 12(1)
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Regardless of whether you submit a refined request or not, the University
will be unable to proceed with compiling a response to your request until
you have provided the requested clarification. Please note that the 20
working day statutory time limit does not begin until clarification has
been received
Kind Regards

The Legal Compliance Team
________________________________________
From: Madeleine Hodgson <[FOI #293270 email]>
Sent: 20 September 2015 11:14
To: infocompliance, Resource
Subject: Freedom of Information request - BP and BP Archive

Dear University of Warwick,

I respectfully request the following information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000:
All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.) between
members of staff of the BP Archive, located in the Modern Records Centre
building, and staff members of the University. “Staff members of the
University” in this case includes any and all members of Security
Services, and the following staff members: Nigel Thrift, Ken Sloan, Mark
Kennell, Mike Glover, Jo Horsburgh, Peter Dunn, Richard Lambert, Stuart
Croft, Roberta Wooldridge Smith, Lucy Taylor, Ian Rowley, James Brecken,
and Kelly Parkes-Harrison. The part of this request pertains to the period
between June 22, 2015, and September 1, 2015. Particular attention should
be paid to the period June 30 – July 3, 2015, and during those days, the
request should be broadened to include any members of the University staff
which the Archive would normally consult with on a day-to-day basis.
Correspondence between the following members of University staff and any
representative of BP plc: Nigel Thrift, Ken Sloan, Mark Kennell, Mike
Glover, Jo Horsburgh, Peter Dunn, Richard Lambert, Stuart Croft, Roberta
Wooldridge Smith, Lucy Taylor, Ian Rowley, James Brecken, and Kelly
Parkes-Harrison, which includes the word or phrase: “divestment”,
“divest”, “disinvestment”, “BP Archive”, “security”, “occupation”, “fossil
free”, “Shard”, or “University Council”. The date range for this part of
the request is from April 1, 2015 to September 10, 2015.
To know why the MRC building was transferred from the ownership of the
University of Warwick to the then-Trustees of the University on July 31,
1996. To know if the land has since been transferred to further Trustees
since that initial transfer.
To know how much rent BP is paying for the lease of the BP Archive (title
number WM578377), and who the rent is paid to. If the rent is paid to a
nominal recipient and then transferred on from that recipient, I request
that information too.
To see any further agreements between the University and BP which are not
accessible through the Land Registry, from 1990 to the present day.
To know who pays for the running costs of the MRC, and the BP Archive
(e.g. security, electricity, wear-and-tear).

I would appreciate any information on these matters you are able to
provide. I understand that this information does not have to be in
document form unless specifically requested, and that it is the
department’s responsibility to provide me with the information I require.

If you need any clarification, please don’t hesitate to contact me by
responding to this email.

I would like to receive the information electronically where possible. I
will be able to pick up any hard documents from the Legal Team’s office on
campus.

If my request is denied in whole or in part, I request that you justify
all deletions and rejections by reference to specific exemptions under the
Act. I also expect you to release all non-exempt material. I reserve the
right to appeal any decision you make.

Please confirm in writing that you have received this request at the
earliest opportunity. You are required under statute to respond within 20
working days. As such, I look forward to your response by Oct. 16.

Yours faithfully,

Madeleine Hodgson

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #293270 email]

Is [University of Warwick request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to University of Warwick? If so, please contact us
using this form:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Madeleine Hodgson

To the Legal Compliance Team,

We did not receive that clarification. This is confirmed by the publically available correspondence at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b..., which you would have been able to check. As such, your statement that you will consider the request invalid in 5 working days in null, as there is publically available evidence that you sent no email.
As such, we expect a reply to the other sections of the request, for which you asked for no clarification, by the normal statutory limit following the submission of the original request. These include the sections:
“To know why the MRC building was transferred from the ownership of the University of Warwick to the then-Trustees of the University on July 31, 1996. To know if the land has since been transferred to further Trustees since that initial transfer.

To know how much rent BP is paying for the lease of the BP Archive (title number WM578377), and who the rent is paid to. If the rent is paid to a nominal recipient and then transferred on from that recipient, I request that information too.”

The deadline for the reply for those sections is Oct. 16, or this coming Friday.
As for the clarification, we seek correspondence relating to ‘occupation’ in the sense of protest activity. Given that we have narrowed down the number of University staff members involved in correspondence considerably, there is little likelihood that this will exceed the statutory limit, and you are only required to search the communications of a limited number of staff members, and it likely that they have a small number of BP employees that they communicate with.
By “further agreements”, we mean all written agreements signed by BP plc and the University of Warwick, relating to anything to do with finance, land tenure, rental agreements, behaviour, public relations, etc. They should be stored in a central database by the administration and be relatively easy to find.
All the best,

Madeleine Hodgson

Dear University of Warwick,

You have failed to respond to my request for information about the BP Archive in any kind of reasonable or statutory length of time. Fossil Free Warwick have released a blog on the issue here: https://fossilfreewarwick.wordpress.com/.... If we continue to fail to hear a response by Wednesday, we will initiate a complaint at the ICO.

You can see the publicly available correspondence here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b....

Yours sincerely,

Madeleine Hodgson

infocompliance, Resource, University of Warwick

Dear Ms Hodgson,

Thank you for your email. The University is currently working on your Freedom of Information request and hopes to provide a response imminently. We understand that this is now beyond the 20 working day statutory time limit and we apologise for any inconvenience this delay may have caused.

Kind Regards

The Legal Compliance Team
________________________________________
From: Madeleine Hodgson <[FOI #293270 email]>
Sent: 16 November 2015 23:13:58
To: infocompliance, Resource
Subject: Re: Fw: Freedom of Information request - BP and BP Archive

Dear University of Warwick,

You have failed to respond to my request for information about the BP Archive in any kind of reasonable or statutory length of time. Fossil Free Warwick have released a blog on the issue here: https://fossilfreewarwick.wordpress.com/.... If we continue to fail to hear a response by Wednesday, we will initiate a complaint at the ICO.

You can see the publicly available correspondence here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b....

Yours sincerely,

Madeleine Hodgson

show quoted sections

infocompliance, Resource, University of Warwick

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Hodgson,

Thank you for your emails dated 20^th September 2015 and 16^th October
2015 requesting information about the University of Warwick. Your request
is being considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please find
below your original request and our response.

I respectfully request the following information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000:

1.      

       All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.)
between members of staff of the BP Archive, located in the Modern Records
Centre building, and staff members of the University. “Staff members of
the University” in this case includes any and all members of Security
Services, and the following staff members: Nigel Thrift, Ken Sloan, Mark
Kennell, Mike Glover, Jo Horsburgh, Peter Dunn, Richard Lambert, Stuart
Croft, Roberta Wooldridge Smith, Lucy Taylor, Ian Rowley, James Brecken,
and Kelly Parkes-Harrison. The part of this request pertains to the period
between June 22, 2015, and September 1, 2015. Particular attention should
be paid to the period June 30 – July 3, 2015, and during those days, the
request should be broadened to include any members of the University staff
which the Archive would normally consult with on a day-to-day basis. 

Please find in the attached PDF document, titled: FOI Request – F288.14-15
BP Archive, correspondence between members of staff of the BP Archive and
any of the University staff listed in your request above between the
period 22^nd June 2015 and the 1^st September 2015.

The opinion of the qualified person for the University has been sought in
this regard and considers that release of some of the requested
information “would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to
prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs” as per section 36
(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Disclosure of such information would have an adverse effect on the
University’s and the BP Archive’s ability to offer a safe and secure
working and studying environment for students, staff and visitors. The
disclosure of certain correspondence would, in the opinion of the
qualified person, be damaging and dangerous to the safety and security of
staff and the security of the building and its archive contents as the
correspondence contains certain details of security arrangements at the BP
Archive.

The University believes that staff should be able to conduct their daily
responsibilities without fear of disruption and intimidating behaviour and
therefore should be provided with an environment in which they feel safe
and secure.  The prospect of disclosure to the public at large would have
an inhibiting effect on providing a safe and secure working environment,
to the detriment of the University and the BP Archive.   

The University has considered whether, in all the circumstances of the
case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the
public interest in disclosing the information and has concluded that it
does, having regard in particular to the need to protect the safety of
staff which is paramount. Whilst the University acknowledges the public
interest in informed debate regarding fossil fuel, the information being
withheld has no relevance or role in informing that debate and the
information simply considers security arrangements for protecting staff,
the building and the archive itself.

For these reasons the University considers that some correspondence
between members of staff of the BP Archive and any of the University staff
listed in your request above between the period 22^nd June 2015 and the
1^st September 2015 are exempt under section 36 (2) (c) of the Act.

Please also note that some information has been redacted from the attached
documents prior to their release to you as the University considers that
its disclosure would constitute the release of personal data as defined by
the Data Protection Act 1998 s 1(1) (i.e. information from which a living
individual can be identified). Therefore we are redacting this information
by virtue of the exemption set out at section 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act.

2.      

       Correspondence between the following members of University staff
and any representative of BP plc: Nigel Thrift, Ken Sloan, Mark Kennell,
Mike Glover, Jo Horsburgh, Peter Dunn, Richard Lambert, Stuart Croft,
Roberta Wooldridge Smith, Lucy Taylor, Ian Rowley, James Brecken, and
Kelly Parkes-Harrison, which includes the word or phrase: “divestment”,
“divest”, “disinvestment”, “BP Archive”, “security”, “occupation”, “fossil
free”, “Shard”, or “University Council”. The date range for this part of
the request is from April 1, 2015 to September 10, 2015.

Please find in the attached PDF document, titled: FOI Request – F288.14-15
BP plc, all correspondence between any of the University staff listed in
your request above and any representative of BP plc which includes the
word or phrase: “divestment”, “divest”, “disinvestment”, “BP Archive”,
“security”, “occupation”, “fossil free”, “Shard”, or “University Council”
between the period 1^st April 2015 and the 10^th September 2015.

Please also note that some information has been redacted from the attached
documents prior to their release to you as the University considers that
its disclosure would constitute the release of personal data as defined by
the Data Protection Act 1998 s 1(1) (i.e. information from which a living
individual can be identified). Therefore we are redacting this information
by virtue of the exemption set out at section 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act.

3.      

       To know why the MRC building was transferred from the ownership of
the University of Warwick to the then-Trustees of the University on July
31, 1996. To know if the land has since been transferred to further
Trustees since that initial transfer.

The library extension was built by the University of Warwick and partly
funded by BP in return for a 50 year lease from 1993.

Subsequently, title to the Library extension (BP Archive) was transferred
to the University of Warwick Foundation to minimise irrecoverable VAT
recovery, on the part of the University, in respect of the library.

After the end of the Capital Goods Scheme period, title to the Library
extension (BP Archive) was returned to the University.

4.      

       To know how much rent BP is paying for the lease of the BP Archive
(title number WM578377), and who the rent is paid to. If the rent is paid
to a nominal recipient and then transferred on from that recipient, I
request that information too.

Pursuant to the 1993 lease, BP does not pay rent for the lease of the BP
Archive.

5.      

       To see any further agreements between the University and BP which
are not accessible through the Land Registry, from 1990 to the present
day.

After seeking clarification, the following additional information was
provided:

By “further agreements”, we mean all written agreements signed by BP plc
and the University of Warwick, relating to anything to do with finance,
land tenure, rental agreements, behaviour, public relations, etc.

The University holds no record of any further agreements between the
University and BP which are not accessible through the Land Registry, from
1990 to the present day other than those agreements which constitute an
awarded project.

6.      

       To know who pays for the running costs of the MRC, and the BP
Archive (e.g. security, electricity, wear-and-tear).

Services provided to the BP Archive such as heat, light, water, power,
telephone, security and maintenance are charged directly to BP, but only
the actual cost which is incurred or an estimate thereof based on the
agreed service charge calculation within the original lease agreement.

If you are unhappy with the way in which your request has been handled by
the University of Warwick, you can request an internal review and in the
first instance you are advised to follow the procedure outlined here:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/l...

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint,
you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Phone: 0303 123 1113

Website: www.ico.gov.uk

There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Horsburgh

Jo Horsburgh  | Deputy Registrar
University House  |  University of Warwick  |  Coventry  |  CV4 8UW

Dear University of Warwick Legal Compliance Team,

I seek clarification of a number of points in your response to my request, ‘BP and BP Archive’, dated Sept. 20, 2015. A record of the correspondence is available at: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b....

Sections 16(1) and 45 (2a) of the Freedom of Information Act states that public authorities have a duty to provide “advice and assistance” to those who make requests. You are also required to provide the information in a format comprehensible to the requester. As such, I seek further explanation and clarification on a number of points.

In the original request I requested: “To know why the MRC building was transferred from the ownership of the University of Warwick to the then-Trustees of the University on July 31, 1996. To know if the land has since been transferred to further Trustees since that initial transfer.”

You responded: “title to the Library extension (BP Archive) was transferred
to the University of Warwick Foundation to minimise irrecoverable VAT recovery, on the part of the University, in respect of the library. After the end of the Capital Goods Scheme period, title to the Library extension (BP Archive) was returned to the University.”

I ask for further explanation on a number of points:
• What is the Capital Goods Scheme?
• When did it run from and until?
• How did transfer of the Library extension to the University Foundation help “minimise irrecoverable VAT recovery”?
• Is ownership of the Library extension now under the University? If so, why does it appear in the Land Registry to still be under the ownership of trustees? And if so, why was the Library extension exempt from the injunction which was taken out in December, 2014, banning occupational protests on campus? And if so, when was it transferred back?

Under one section of my original request I asked “To see any further agreements between the University and BP which are not accessible through the Land Registry, from 1990 to the present day.”
Your response stated that there were none, “other than those agreements which constitute an awarded project.” I seek to clarification on:
• What an “awarded project” is.
• What those awarded projects between BP and Warwick are, and/or where I can find information on them.

I would also like to request an internal review on one aspect of the request.

You wrote that only those parts which included “personal data” and “certain details of security arrangements at the BP Archive” are exempt.

Under the correspondence you provided in response to the request, entitled “FOI Request – F288.14-15 BP Archive”, one sentence reads as follows: “as there are [blank] in the office, we are getting more and more concerned that this may result in some action by the students”. The context of the sentence doesn’t appear to suggest that the redacted word(s) contains any personal data or details of security arrangements at the BP Archive, so we ask that this redaction be removed. If you refuse, we will appeal to the ICO.

This internal review must be completed within 20 working days. As such, I expect a response, at the latest, by Thursday 28 January, 2016.

Yours faithfully,

Madeleine Hodgson

Madeleine Hodgson

Dear Legal Compliance Team,

Can you confirm that you received my request for internal review and clarification of my request, 'BP and BP Archive', email dated 30/12/15. The correspondence is available here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b....

You are required to respond with 20 working days of receiving the request. As such, I look forward to your response by 28/1/16.

Yours sincerely,

Madeleine Hodgson

infocompliance, Resource, University of Warwick

Dear Ms Hodgson,

We can confirm that the University has received your request for an
internal review and clarification of your freedom of information request,
'BP and BP Archive'.

We note that you state we are required to respond within 20 working days
of receiving the request however we would like to point out that the 20
working day limit for responding to internal reviews is a recommendation
from ICO good practice guidance and the Freedom of Information Act itself
does not set a specific time limit for conducting an internal review. 

We endeavour to respond as soon as we reasonably can, but please bear in
mind that it is a requirement that internal reviews are undertaken by
someone senior to the person who took the original decision and therefore,
as you can appreciate, allocating time to conduct a thorough review can be
challenging. 

The University is obligated to have in place a procedure that undertakes a
full re-evaluation of the case and, depending on the nature of the request
and the information held, an internal review process can be quite time
consuming and therefore it is sometimes necessary to take longer that the
recommended good practice time period.

If we are unable to provide a response to your request for an internal
review within the 20 working day guideline period then we will contact you
with an update.

Kind Regards

The Legal Compliance Team 
________________________________________
From: Madeleine Hodgson <[FOI #293270 email]>
Sent: 13 January 2016 18:34
To: infocompliance, Resource
Subject: Re: FOI Request - University of Warwick - F288.14-15

     Dear Legal Compliance Team,

     Can you confirm that you received my request for internal review
     and clarification of my request, 'BP and BP Archive', email dated
     30/12/15. The correspondence is available here:
    
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b....

     You are required to respond with 20 working days of receiving the
     request. As such, I look forward to your response by 28/1/16.

     Yours sincerely,

     Madeleine Hodgson

    

show quoted sections

infocompliance, Resource, University of Warwick

Dear Ms Hodgson,

Thank you for your email dated 30^th December 2015. Your email was
interpreted as a request for an Internal Review into the way in which the
University has responded to your recent Freedom of Information request. I
write to confirm that in accordance with our procedures, a review has been
carried out.

You original request consisted of 6 separate questions. The University
interpreted your email, dated 30^th December 2015, as requesting
clarification on the University’s response to questions three and five of
your original request and also seeking an internal review of the
information redacted in relation to question one of your original request.
Therefore the University has only investigated and responded to your
comments in relation to questions one, three and five of your original
request.

Your original request and our original response to question three:

3. To know why the MRC building was transferred from the ownership of the
University of Warwick to the then-Trustees of the University on July 31,
1996. To know if the land has since been transferred to further Trustees
since that initial transfer.”
Title to the Library extension (BP Archive) was transferred to the
University of Warwick Foundation to minimise irrecoverable VAT recovery,
on the part of the University, in respect of the library. After the end of
the Capital Goods Scheme period, title to the Library extension (BP
Archive) was returned to the University.

Your comments regarding our response to question three:

I ask for further explanation on a number of points:

·         What is the Capital Goods Scheme?

·         When did it run from and until?

·         How did transfer of the Library extension to the University
Foundation help “minimise irrecoverable VAT recovery”?

·         Is ownership of the Library extension now under the University?
If so, why does it appear in the Land Registry to still be under the
ownership of trustees? And if so, why was the Library extension exempt
from the injunction which was taken out in December, 2014, banning
occupational protests on campus? And if so, when was it transferred back?

Please find below the University’s clarification and response to your
comments regarding question three:

·         What is the Capital Goods Scheme?

HMRC guidance “VAT Notice 706/2: capital goods scheme” can be found at:
[1]https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

·         When did it run from and until?

Under the relevant Capital Goods Scheme the applicable adjustment period
ran for 10 years from the date of practical completion which was 29 April
1993.

·         How did transfer of the Library extension to the University
Foundation help “minimise irrecoverable VAT recovery”?

In 1996, the MRC building (including the BP archive within it) was sold to
the University of Warwick Foundation – transferring ownership to the
then-trustees of the University of Warwick Foundation. This enabled the
University to recover a proportion of input VAT on the build costs under
the terms of the HMRC Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) applicable at the time.

·         Is ownership of the Library extension now under the University?
If so, why does it appear in the Land Registry to still be under the
ownership of trustees? And if so, why was the Library extension exempt
from the injunction which was taken out in December, 2014, banning
occupational protests on campus? And if so, when was it transferred back?

Thank you for drawing this to the University’s attention. It would appear
there is an error at the Land Registry which the University is
investigating. The TR1 transfer form was completed in respect of the sale
in July 2007, transferring the title back to the University.

The Foundation Trust details can be found on the University’s webpages:
[2]https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/fina...

Your original request and our original response to question five:

5. To see any further agreements between the University and BP which are
not accessible through the Land Registry, from 1990 to the present day.

After seeking clarification, the following additional information was
provided:

By “further agreements”, we mean all written agreements signed by BP and
the University of Warwick, relating to anything to do with finance, land
tenure, rental agreements, behaviour, public relations, etc.
The University holds no record of any further agreements between the
University and BP which are not accessible through the Land Registry, from
1990 to the present day other than those agreements which constitute an
awarded project

Your comments regarding our response to question five:

I seek to clarification on:

·         What an “awarded project” is.

·         What those awarded projects between BP and Warwick are, and/or
where I can find information on them.

Please find below the University’s clarification and response to your
comments regarding question five:

An awarded project is a research project carried out by the University and
does not relate to ‘finance, land tenure, rental agreements, behaviour or
public relations’.

Your original request and our original response to question one:

1. All correspondence (emails, letters, memos, phone logs etc.) between
members of staff of the BP Archive, located in the Modern Records Centre
building, and staff members of the University. “Staff members of the
University” in this case includes any and all members of Security
Services, and the following staff members: Nigel Thrift, Ken Sloan, Mark
Kennell, Mike Glover, Jo Horsburgh, Peter Dunn, Richard Lambert, Stuart
Croft, Roberta Wooldridge Smith, Lucy Taylor, Ian Rowley, James Brecken,
and Kelly Parkes-Harrison. The part of this request pertains to the period
between June 22, 2015, and September 1, 2015. Particular attention should
be paid to the period June 30 – July 3, 2015, and during those days, the
request should be broadened to include any members of the University staff
which the Archive would normally consult with on a day-to-day basis. 

Please find in the attached PDF document, titled: FOI Request – F288.14-15
BP Archive, correspondence between members of staff of the BP Archive and
any of the University staff listed in your request above between the
period 22^nd June 2015 and the 1^st September 2015.

The opinion of the qualified person for the University has been sought in
this regard and considers that release of some of the requested
information “would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to
prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs” as per section 36
(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Disclosure of such information would have an adverse effect on the
University’s and the BP Archive’s ability to offer a safe and secure
working and studying environment for students, staff and visitors. The
disclosure of certain correspondence would, in the opinion of the
qualified person, be damaging and dangerous to the safety and security of
staff and the security of the building and its archive contents as the
correspondence contains certain details of security arrangements at the BP
Archive.

The University believes that staff should be able to conduct their daily
responsibilities without fear of disruption and intimidating behaviour and
therefore should be provided with an environment in which they feel safe
and secure.  The prospect of disclosure to the public at large would have
an inhibiting effect on providing a safe and secure working environment,
to the detriment of the University and the BP Archive.  

The University has considered whether, in all the circumstances of the
case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the
public interest in disclosing the information and has concluded that it
does, having regard in particular to the need to protect the safety of
staff which is paramount. Whilst the University acknowledges the public
interest in informed debate regarding fossil fuel, the information being
withheld has no relevance or role in informing that debate and the
information simply considers security arrangements for protecting staff,
the building and the archive itself.

For these reasons the University considers that some correspondence
between members of staff of the BP Archive and any of the University staff
listed in your request above between the period 22^nd June 2015 and the
1^st September 2015 are exempt under section 36 (2) (c) of the Act.

Please also note that some information has been redacted from the attached
documents prior to their release to you as the University considers that
its disclosure would constitute the release of personal data as defined by
the Data Protection Act 1998 s 1(1) (i.e. information from which a living
individual can be identified). Therefore we are redacting this information
by virtue of the exemption set out at section 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act.

Your comments regarding our response to question one:

I would also like to request an internal review on one aspect of the
request.

You wrote that only those parts which included “personal data” and
“certain details of security arrangements at the BP Archive” are exempt.

Under the correspondence you provided in response to the request, entitled
“FOI Request – F288.14-15 BP Archive”, one sentence reads as follows: “as
there are [blank] in the office, we are getting more and more concerned
that this may result in some action by the students”. The context of the
sentence doesn’t appear to suggest that the redacted word(s) contains any
personal data or details of security arrangements at the BP Archive, so we
ask that this redaction be removed. If you refuse, we will appeal to the
ICO.

Please find below the University’s clarification and response to your
comments regarding question one:

The University has reviewed the redaction you wish to seek an internal
review on and can confirm that the redacted word(s) do contain personal
data in which a living individual can be identified and therefore the
University’s internal review reinforces the redaction of this information
by virtue of the exemption set out at section 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act.

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint,
you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Phone: 0303 123 1113

Website: [3]www.ico.gov.uk

There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely,

Rosie Drinkwater

Rosie Drinkwater  | Group Finance Director
University House  |  University of Warwick  |  Coventry  |  CV4 8UW

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
2. https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/fina...
3. http://www.ico.gov.uk/