Dear Salford City Council,

I previously sought information about Centenary Bridge Maintenance, in particular, that relating to 2017 - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

It appears some information was not disclosed.

I am seeking all information relating to works on the bridge and the approaches during July 2017. An incident of 27/07/2017 was documented but a day or two before another incident occurred and data about this was not disclosed. I am seeking this.

Additionally, please provide the 'actions' report for the year 2017

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Wrycraft, James, Salford City Council

Dear Mr Swift,

 

I am writing on behalf of Salford City Council in response to your freedom
of information request raised 24.08.2020, the body of which is as follows:

 

“I am seeking all information relating to works on the bridge and the
approaches during July 2017.  An incident of 27/07/2017 was documented but
a day or two before another incident occurred and data about this was not
disclosed. I am seeking this.

 

Additionally, please provide the 'actions' report for the year 2017”

 

I am writing in search of further clarity of the request for an ‘actions
report’. The service area in discussion do not know specifically what you
are asking for as such reports do not exist. Please can you provide
further clarity, specifically detailing what kind of information you would
expect to find in such reports. I’ll able to take this back to the service
area to identify if there are any analogous items which could fulfil this
part of your request.

Many Thanks,

James Wrycraft
Principal Information Governance Officer

Salford City Council
Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, Salford M27 5DA

 

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this communication/message from
[email address] is confidential. It is intended solely for
the addressee(s) Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or
distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in
reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. As a public body,
Salford City Council may be required to disclose this email [or any
response to it] under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the
information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act. Please
immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error.
For the full disclaimer please access http://www.salford.gov.uk/e-mail
Thank you.

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

X04B128

Dear Wrycraft, James,

the 'actions report' will detail all activity at the location, for example, incident attendance, road closures etc.

the information will include all such attendances and associated invoices (with amended versions).

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear Mr Wrycraft,

I am surprised the service area do not know specifically what I am asking for; I have based my request on your terminology having bene provided such a report i.e. they do exist.

The term 'actions' originates from your council https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

'Each year there have been between 50 and 100 actions and to retrieve each individual action would take about 15 minutes per action. To provide the information for each year would therefore take 12.5 hours to 25 hours. To do this for the 7 years you have requested would take between 87.5hours and 175hours. This is clearly in excess of the permitted 18 hours.'

At the above link you will also find an example of an 'actions report' (actions 2016) provided 14/03/2019.

Mindful of the above, please provide the reports that pre-date 01/08/2017, ideally, this will be from 01/01/2017 to 01/08/2017 - I trust, initially, this can be provided electronically, held as a list, in excel format.

With regard to the 'individual actions', mindful of costs, from 01/04/2017 to 01/08/2017 may suffice i.e. 4 months.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Wrycraft, James, Salford City Council

2 Attachments

 

25 September 2020

 

Dear Mr Swift,

 

I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information request on
24.08.2020, the body of which is as follows

 

Request:

 

**

I previously sought information about Centenary Bridge Maintenance, in
particular, that relating to 2017 -
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

 

It appears some information was not disclosed.

 

1. I am seeking all information relating to works on the bridge and the
approaches during July 2017.  An incident of 27/07/2017 was documented but
a day or two before another incident occurred and data about this was not
disclosed. I am seeking this.

 

2. Additionally, please provide the 'actions' report for the year 2017

**

 

Please accept apologies for the delay in final response. The documents
requested where held in paper file at the Salford City Council building.
As the majority of the SCC workforce are currently working from home,
arrangements had to be organised for the service area to retrieve the
requested information.

 

Please see attached response.

Many Thanks,

James Wrycraft
Principal Information Governance Officer

Salford City Council
Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, Salford M27 5DA

 

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this communication/message from
[email address] is confidential. It is intended solely for
the addressee(s) Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or
distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in
reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. As a public body,
Salford City Council may be required to disclose this email [or any
response to it] under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the
information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act. Please
immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error.
For the full disclaimer please access http://www.salford.gov.uk/e-mail
Thank you.

Dear Mr Wrycraft

I am concerned about the obstruction and prevarication encountered. I asked for the 'actions' report for the year 2017” to which you responded seeking

‘further clarity of the request for an ‘actions report’. The service area in discussion do not know specifically what you are asking for as such reports do not exist’. However, you have now supplied the ‘actions reports’

Whilst you state the Council ‘does not hold any information on record regarding a road traffic accident (RTA) shortly prior to the RTA reported on the 27th July 2017’. The fact is you were billed £500 by Galliford Try for their attendance:

• Centenary Way, Salford
• Works Order ZUVW/M/000500
• Attendance Tuesday 25/07/2017
• for a ‘road closure / emergency job’.
• Galliford Try have invoiced30/08/2017
• invoice number 5012003910

It appears, at the very least, Galliford Try hold this information ‘on your behalf’ i.e. it is captured by FoIA.

When responding, please advise the enquiries you have made to date of your contractor.

My request was as follows:

1. I am seeking all information relating to works on the bridge and the approaches during July 2017. An incident of 27/07/2017 was documented but a day or two before another incident occurred and data about this was not disclosed. I am seeking this.

You have replied, as above:

The Council confirms does not hold any information on record regarding a road traffic accident (RTA) shortly prior to the RTA reported on the 27th July 2017.

I have not asked in respect of an RTC.

You do hold information – an invoice from Galliford Try and the Action report displays multiple references to ‘25/07/2017 defect’. Please explain why I have yet to be provided all information relating to this and how it is not captured by my request.

I am seeking an internal; review of your ‘commercial interest’ exemption. I believe you will find that ‘emergency’ (DCP) rates do not attract the exemption whereas pre-planned and/or ‘scheme’ works would. This has been aired in Tribunal Appeal EA/2019/0119 – rates being presented in invoices, contractors could not consider them ‘sensitive’. The public interest detail has not been provided and it does not appear the contractor was asked whether they considered the rates to be commercially sensitive.

Please ensure the information I have requested is sent without further delay

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Wrycraft, James, Salford City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Swift,

 

I hope this information finds you well.

 

I am writing on behalf of Salford City Council in response to your request
for Internal review.

 

I refer to your request for information of the 24.08.2020 and your
subsequent request for an internal review on the 29.09.2020.

 

Your original request of 25.09.2020 is below:

 

**

I previously sought information about Centenary Bridge Maintenance, in
particular, that relating to 2017 -
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

 

It appears some information was not disclosed.

 

1. I am seeking all information relating to works on the bridge and the
approaches during July 2017.  An incident of 27/07/2017 was documented but
a day or two before another incident occurred and data about this was not
disclosed. I am seeking this.

 

2. Additionally, please provide the 'actions' report for the year 2017

**

 

And the subsequent request for internal review on the 29.09.2020:  

**

Dear Mr Wrycraft

 

I am concerned about the obstruction and prevarication encountered.  I
asked for the 'actions' report for the year 2017” to which you responded
seeking

 

‘further clarity of the request for an ‘actions report’. The service area
in discussion do not know specifically what you are asking for as such
reports do not exist’.  However, you have now supplied the ‘actions
reports’

 

[1] Whilst you state the Council ‘does not hold any information on record
regarding a road traffic accident (RTA) shortly prior to the RTA reported
on the 27th July 2017’.  The fact is you were billed £500 by Galliford Try
for their attendance:

 

•           Centenary Way, Salford

 

•           Works Order ZUVW/M/000500

 

•           Attendance Tuesday 25/07/2017

 

•           for a ‘road closure / emergency job’. 

 

•           Galliford Try have invoiced30/08/2017

 

•           invoice number 5012003910

 

It appears, at the very least, Galliford Try hold this information ‘on
your behalf’ i.e. it is captured by FoIA. 

 

[2] When responding, please advise the enquiries you have made to date of
your contractor.

 

My request was as follows:

 

“1. I am seeking all information relating to works on the bridge and the
approaches during July 2017.  An incident of 27/07/2017 was documented but
a day or two before another incident occurred and data about this was not
disclosed. I am seeking this.”

 

You have replied, as above:

 

“The Council confirms does not hold any information on record regarding a
road traffic accident (RTA) shortly prior to the RTA reported on the 27th
July 2017.”

 

I have not asked in respect of an RTC.

 

You do hold information – an invoice from Galliford Try and the Action
report displays multiple references to ‘25/07/2017 defect’.  Please
explain why I have yet to be provided all information relating to this and
how it is not captured by my request.

 

[3] I am seeking an internal; review of your ‘commercial interest’
exemption.  I believe you will find that ‘emergency’ (DCP) rates do not
attract the exemption whereas pre-planned and/or ‘scheme’ works would.
This has been aired in Tribunal Appeal EA/2019/0119 – rates being
presented in invoices, contractors could not consider them ‘sensitive’. 
The public interest detail has not been provided and it does not appear
the contractor was asked whether they considered the rates to be
commercially sensitive.

 

Please ensure the information I have requested is sent without further
delay

**

 

Please see attached response.

Many Thanks,

James Wrycraft
Principal Information Governance Officer

Salford City Council
Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, Salford M27 5DA

 

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this communication/message from
[email address] is confidential. It is intended solely for
the addressee(s) Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or
distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in
reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. As a public body,
Salford City Council may be required to disclose this email [or any
response to it] under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the
information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act. Please
immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error.
For the full disclaimer please access http://www.salford.gov.uk/e-mail
Thank you.

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

council rpely:

[1] Any information held and given by Galliford Try is their information to give. The service area has been in contact with the Manchester Ship Canal Company (MSCC) regarding the repairs on the 25th July 2017. Unfortunately, further information is not held of any work undertaken. Please note that MSCC have an agreement to undertake all mechanical and operational maintenance on the bridge and the Council only gets involved if it becomes a serious incident such as an RTA. Further enquiry regarding the works should be directed to MSCC.

[2] Details on the enquiries made to contractors are outside of this FOI request. Further requests cannot be made in an internal review, and internal reviews exists only to review the original request and response.

Please note that you state “I have not asked in respect of an RTC”. In your original request you wrote: “An incident of 27/07/2017 was documented but a day or two before another incident occurred and data about this was not disclosed. I am seeking this.” While the Council appreciates that given the clarification in your request for internal review that you were not speaking regarding an RTA, in the original response you referred to the RTA on the 27th as incident. When you later referred to the works that occurred on 25th, your use of the phrase “another incident”, which led the Council to assume that you were referring – as you had done to the RTA on the 25th – to another RTA. Any response given which may have suggested “obstruction and prevarication” may have instead been due to a lack of understanding and clarity between the Council and yourself.

[3] The Council has reviewed the Appeal and has concluded that pricing information is still considered commercially sensitive information and is exempt under Section 43. The appeal in question confirms that the First Tier Tribunal considers the information commercially sensitive, and the appeal was dismissed. The company in question gave the information directly. The single company in question did not see this (their) information as commercially sensitive; this does not set a precedent for all similar information to be considered non-sensitive information. The Council still has a duty of care to maintain a commercial relationship with all its contractors, and maintaining commercial sensitivity is part of this.

Therefore, the Council upholds its original decision to withhold part of this information, though further enquiries were made regarding the works occurring on the 25.07.2020, of which no further information was identified.

This concludes the council’s review of your Freedom of Information request; which has been discussed with and approved by the council’s Data Protection Officer. If you remain dissatisfied with the council’s response to your request; you may wish to contact the ICO as previously advised.

Dear Mr Wrycraft,

I have been the subject of delays, prevarication and what appears to be misrepresentation. You appear to have initially withheld information wishing me to clarify as you did not understand the reference to 'Action Log' records yet this is your terminology as evidenced by the information supplied.

25/07/2017 there was attention to the location. The supplied Action logs, specifically record '2' specifies a 'repair' entry 25/07/2017. It appears 19 hours have been engaged. An invoice was raised by Galliford Try (GT) clearly something occurred but you have failed to explain what.

You now state:

• [1] Any information held and given by Galliford Try is their information to give.

I do not accept the above is correct. I have not asked for information 'held' by GT. However, if GT hold records pertaining to charges presented to your council, the information is 'held on behalf of' you.

1. Please:

a. Confirm you have sought the information or
b. That you will do so and
c. Provide this or
d. Explain why the activity and GT’s invoice cannot be substantiated i.e. the basis upon which you paid an unsupported bill

Please note that withholding information is a criminal offence (s77 FoIA).

You have failed to review and address the ‘commercial interests’ exclusion. Please be aware that Highways England had previously taken a similar stance however it was subsequently considered unplanned’ or ‘reactive’ rates were not considered commercially sensitive. For example, by reason of them appearing upon invoices presented to Third Parties (by way of claim support), they are released ‘to the world’ (or could be.).

Mindful requests have occurred and a review was undertaken, should the information not be supplied within the next 10 working days i.e. on or before 11/11/2020, I will place the matter with the ICO.

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Wrycraft, James, Salford City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Swift

I am writing in response to your further email in response to Salford City Council's Internal review on 30.10.2020. Please see attached response.

Many Thanks,
James Wrycraft
Principal Information Governance Officer
Salford City Council
Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, Salford M27 5DA

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this communication/message from [email address] is confidential. It is intended solely for the addressee(s) Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. As a public body, Salford City Council may be required to disclose this email [or any response to it] under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. For the full disclaimer please access http://www.salford.gov.uk/e-mail Thank you.

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

Council response;
The Council has carried out a review of the information above and the Council’s original response. Please see below response:

[1] Any information held and given by Galliford Try is their information to give. The service area has been in contact with the Manchester Ship Canal Company (MSCC) regarding the repairs on the 25th July 2017. Unfortunately, further information is not held of any work undertaken. Please note that MSCC have an agreement to undertake all mechanical and operational maintenance on the bridge and the Council only gets involved if it becomes a serious incident such as an RTA. Further enquiry regarding the works should be directed to MSCC.

[2] Details on the enquiries made to contractors are outside of this FOI request. Further requests cannot be made in an internal review, and internal reviews exists only to review the original request and response.

Please note that you state “I have not asked in respect of an RTC”. In your original request you wrote: “An incident of 27/07/2017 was documented but a day or two before another incident occurred and data about this was not disclosed. I am seeking this.” While the Council appreciates that given the clarification in your request for internal review that you were not speaking regarding an RTA, in the original response you referred to the RTA on the 27th as incident. When you later referred to the works that occurred on 25th, your use of the phrase “another incident”, which led the Council to assume that you were referring – as you had done to the RTA on the 25th – to another RTA. Any response given which may have suggested “obstruction and prevarication” may have instead been due to a lack of understanding and clarity between the Council and yourself.

[3] The Council has reviewed the Appeal and has concluded that pricing information is still considered commercially sensitive information and is exempt under Section 43. The appeal in question confirms that the First Tier Tribunal considers the information commercially sensitive, and the appeal was dismissed. The company in question gave the information directly. The single company in question did not see this (their) information as commercially sensitive; this does not set a precedent for all similar information to be considered non-sensitive information. The Council still has a duty of care to maintain a commercial relationship with all its contractors, and maintaining commercial sensitivity is part of this.

Therefore, the Council upholds its original decision to withhold part of this information, though further enquiries were made regarding the works occurring on the 25.07.2020, of which no further information was identified.

On 30.10.2020, a further request was received.
**
I have been the subject of delays, prevarication and what appears to be misrepresentation. You appear to have initially withheld information wishing me to clarify as you did not understand the reference to 'Action Log' records yet this is your terminology as evidenced by the information supplied.

[1]25/07/2017 there was attention to the location. The supplied Action logs, specifically record '2' specifies a 'repair' entry 25/07/2017. It appears 19 hours have been engaged. An invoice was raised by Galliford Try (GT) clearly something occurred but you have failed to explain what.

You now state:

• [1] Any information held and given by Galliford Try is their information to give.
I do not accept the above is correct. I have not asked for information 'held' by GT. However, if GT hold records pertaining to charges presented to your council, the information is 'held on behalf of' you.

1. Please:
a. Confirm you have sought the information or
b. That you will do so and
c. Provide this or
d. Explain why the activity and GT’s invoice cannot be substantiated i.e. the basis upon which you paid an unsupported bill

Please note that withholding information is a criminal offence (s77 FoIA).

[2] You have failed to review and address the ‘commercial interests’ exclusion. Please be aware that Highways England had previously taken a similar stance however it was subsequently considered unplanned’ or ‘reactive’ rates were not considered commercially sensitive. For example, by reason of them appearing upon invoices presented to Third Parties (by way of claim support), they are released ‘to the world’ (or could be).
**

[1] The Council had previously requested this information from Manchester Shipping Canal Company (MSCC). The work on the 25th was a small incident which occurred and was resolved before the RTA of the 27th July; it was reported by the service area that the MSCC had continued to supply information relating to the RTA on the 27th. Please accept the Council’s apologies, as this information was not held by the Council, and based off correspondence with MSCC, was believed not to be held on behalf of the Council. Please see attached work order relating to the works on the 25th. This is the only information held.

• The GT Invoice was for Traffic Management to assist in the repairs to the north upstream barrier.
• The work undertaken by Manchester Ship Canal Com (Peel) was repairs to the north upstream barrier, this work was completed.

Please also note that names have been redacted from the work order and are exempt from disclosure under Section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This provides an exemption from the right to know when the information requested consists of personal data, if its disclosure would breach any of the data protection principles.

[2] The Council has reviewed the “commercial interests” exemption and considers the information to still be exempt for reasons detailed above in the original response, and requests to disclose the information in the Internal Review request were not considered to be strong enough to divulge the information, for reasons stated in the Internal Review response above.

This concludes the council’s review of your Freedom of Information request; which has been discussed with and approved by the council’s Data Protection Officer. If you remain dissatisfied with the council’s response to your request; you may wish to contact the ICO as previously advised.

Dear Wrycraft, James,

If I have understood correctly, you have been billed by Galliford Try, made payment but other than an invoice, you have no supportive documentation, no corroboration work was required and correctly invoiced.

The information held by Galliford Try is held on your behalf. They, at the very least, should be able to account for their claim for payment. Please confirm you have approached them for this data - we note you have approached Manchester Ship Canal Com (Peel)

You state:
The work on the 25th was a small incident which occurred and was resolved before the RTA of the 27th July;

the 'small' categorisation appears to from the cost (£500); what else do you possess to support the 'small' description and how are you aware the matter was resolved before 27/07 and how was it resolved, what was the work undertaken and the £500 justified, reconciled pre-payment?

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift