[1]{"HashCode":1987674191,"Height":841.0,"Width":595.0,"Placement":"Header","Index":"Primary","Section":1,"Top":0.0,"Left":0.0}

 

Request for Information – LBR-FOI-04209 – Pools on the Park

 

Thank you for your request for information received on 07 February 2024.

 

We aim to respond to you within 20 working days.

 

Regards

 

FOI and DPA Officer

[email address]

IMPORTANT:
This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received
this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the
contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the
sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and
Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to
authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.

References

Visible links

Official

Request for Information - LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park

 

I refer to your request for information received on 07 February 2024. 
Please see the information below and attached in response to your request:
-

 

Your Request:

 

Please provide all communications between the Council and QS Support Ltd
in regards to the two options for the health suite area at Pools on the
Park that culminated in project estimates of £140K and £210K in a document
dated 31/10/22?

 

Our Response:

 

Please see attached emails, which have been redacted of staff and
contractor’s names and contact details under Section 40 (2)(b) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000, as releasing personal information
relating to other individuals would breach the Data Protection
principles.  Please note that this is an absolute exemption under the
Freedom of Information Act and therefore the public interest test does not
apply.

 

Please note that the attached emails and spreadsheets have also been
redacted of costs yet to go out to tender under Section 43 of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000.  Section 43 states that information is exempt
from disclosure if its disclosure would or would be likely to, prejudice
the commercial interests of any person, including the public authority
holding it.  This exemption requires the Council to consider the public
interest test and, whilst the Council recognises the public interest in
the transparency of the procurement process, it must consider the strong
public interest in securing best value for taxpayers.  In addition it
could be considered that the costs were provided on a confidential basis
on the understanding that they would not be placed in the public domain. 
As a consequence, the greater public interest lies in withholding these
parts of the requested information.

 

If you do not understand the information provided or wish to discuss
anything further, please feel free to contact us.

 

Please note, all material provided by Richmond Council in response to your
request for information is for your personal, non-commercial use. The
Council reserves all rights in the copyright of the information
provided.  Any unauthorised copying or adaptation of the information
without express written confirmation from the Council may constitute an
infringement of copyright. Any intention to re-use this information
commercially may require consent.  Please forward any requests for re-use
of information to the FOI officer.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the information provided in relation to your
request, you may make representations to the Information and Transparency
Manager.  Any such request for an internal review should be made within 40
days from today's date.  Correspondence should be addressed to: [1][email
address]

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision
at: [2]https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

 

Regards,

 

FOI and DPA Officer

[3][email address]

 

From: Martin Baker <[FOI #1082730 email]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 2:19 PM
To: FOI LBR <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Communications between the
council and QS Support Ltd in regards to health suite area at Pools on the
Park

[You don't often get email from [4][FOI #1082730 email]. Learn why this is
important at [5]https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]

Dear Richmond upon Thames Borough Council,

Please provide all communications between the council and QS Support Ltd
in regards to the two options for the health suite area at Pools on the
Park that culminated in project estimates of £140K and £210K in a document
dated 31/10/22.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Baker

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

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[6][FOI #1082730 email]

Is [7][Richmond upon Thames Borough Council request email] the wrong
address for Freedom of Information requests to Richmond upon Thames
Borough Council? If so, please contact us using this form:

[8]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[9]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:

[10]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

[11]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

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.

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

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email%20address]
2. https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
3. mailto:[email%20address]
4. mailto:[foi%20#1082730%20email]
5. https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific...
6. mailto:[foi%20#1082730%20email]
7. mailto:[richmond%20upon%20thames%20borough%20council%20request%20email]
8. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
9. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
10. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
11. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Official

Dear Mr Baker,

Thank you for your email

Richmond Council has already provided copies of all communications held
between the Council and QS Support regarding options for health suite at
Pools on the Park. 

The document referred to is titled ‘QSS – POYP 31.10.22’ and a redacted
copy was disclosed to you previously, but we have attached again now.

 

Regards,

 

FOI and DPA Officer

[1][email address]

From: Martin Baker <[FOI #1082730 email]>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 2:02 PM
To: FOI LBR <[email address]>
Subject: Re: LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park

Dear FOI LBR,

Thanks for the information but this does not appear to be complete and
there are also many duplicated emails.

You didn't redact one of the instances of Paul Greengrass (MD at QS
Support) so I will use his name from now on since it has been made public.

The Project Officer and Paul Greengrass (QS Support) had a site meeting at
Pools on the Park on 12/10/22. One would expect some communication after
the meeting to confirm what was discussed but the next email is dated on
the evening of 18/10/22 where Paul Greengrass says "thanks for sending
these over". What was sent to Paul Greengrass and where is that email?

Yours sincerely,

Martin Baker

From: FOI LBR [2][email address]
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 10:55 AM
To: Martin Baker [3][FOI #1082730 email]
Subject: LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park

Request for Information - LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park

 

I refer to your request for information received on 07 February 2024. 
Please see the information below and attached in response to your request:
-

 

Your Request:

 

Please provide all communications between the Council and QS Support Ltd
in regards to the two options for the health suite area at Pools on the
Park that culminated in project estimates of £140K and £210K in a document
dated 31/10/22?

 

Our Response:

 

Please see attached emails, which have been redacted of staff and
contractor’s names and contact details under Section 40 (2)(b) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000, as releasing personal information
relating to other individuals would breach the Data Protection
principles.  Please note that this is an absolute exemption under the
Freedom of Information Act and therefore the public interest test does not
apply.

 

Please note that the attached emails and spreadsheets have also been
redacted of costs yet to go out to tender under Section 43 of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000.  Section 43 states that information is exempt
from disclosure if its disclosure would or would be likely to, prejudice
the commercial interests of any person, including the public authority
holding it.  This exemption requires the Council to consider the public
interest test and, whilst the Council recognises the public interest in
the transparency of the procurement process, it must consider the strong
public interest in securing best value for taxpayers.  In addition it
could be considered that the costs were provided on a confidential basis
on the understanding that they would not be placed in the public domain. 
As a consequence, the greater public interest lies in withholding these
parts of the requested information.

 

If you do not understand the information provided or wish to discuss
anything further, please feel free to contact us.

 

Please note, all material provided by Richmond Council in response to your
request for information is for your personal, non-commercial use. The
Council reserves all rights in the copyright of the information
provided.  Any unauthorised copying or adaptation of the information
without express written confirmation from the Council may constitute an
infringement of copyright. Any intention to re-use this information
commercially may require consent.  Please forward any requests for re-use
of information to the FOI officer.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the information provided in relation to your
request, you may make representations to the Information and Transparency
Manager.  Any such request for an internal review should be made within 40
days from today's date.  Correspondence should be addressed to: [4][email
address]

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision
at: [5]https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

 

Regards,

 

FOI and DPA Officer

[6][email address]

 

From: Martin Baker <[7][FOI #1082730 email]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 2:19 PM
To: FOI LBR <[8][email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Communications between the
council and QS Support Ltd in regards to health suite area at Pools on the
Park

[You don't often get email from [9][FOI #1082730 email]. Learn why this is
important at [10]https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]

Dear Richmond upon Thames Borough Council,

Please provide all communications between the council and QS Support Ltd
in regards to the two options for the health suite area at Pools on the
Park that culminated in project estimates of £140K and £210K in a document
dated 31/10/22.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Baker

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

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[11][FOI #1082730 email]

Is [12][Richmond upon Thames Borough Council request email] the wrong
address for Freedom of Information requests to Richmond upon Thames
Borough Council? If so, please contact us using this form:

[13]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[14]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:

[15]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

[16]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

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.

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

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email%20address]
2. mailto:[email%20address]
3. mailto:[foi%20#1082730%20email]
4. mailto:[email%20address]
5. https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
6. mailto:[email%20address]
7. mailto:[foi%20#1082730%20email]
8. mailto:[email%20address]
9. mailto:[foi%20#1082730%20email]
10. https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific...
11. mailto:[foi%20#1082730%20email]
12. mailto:[richmond%20upon%20thames%20borough%20council%20request%20email]
13. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
14. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
15. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
16. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Official

Request for Information - LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park

 

Thank you for your email received 02/04/2024.

 

We will consider this as a request for Internal Review.

 

We aim to respond to you within a further 20 working days of the receipt
of your request for review.

 

 

Regards,

 

FOI and DPA Officer

[1][email address]

 

 
From: Martin Baker <[FOI #1082730 email]>
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2024 10:06 PM
To: FOI LBR <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request -
Communications between the council and QS Support Ltd in regards to health
suite area at Pools on the Park

 

Dear Richmond upon Thames Borough Council,

 

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

 

I am writing to request an internal review of Richmond upon Thames Borough
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Communications between the council
and QS Support Ltd in regards to health suite area at Pools on the Park'.

 

1. The information provided is not complete. On 16/03/24 I queried why QSS
says in an email dated 18/10/22 "thanks for sending these over" and was
told that the spreadsheet named 'QSS POTP 31.10.22 redacted.xlsx' was the
document in question but this is clearly incorrect since that document is
from QSS to LBRUT and it is dated AFTER this mention. There is clearly at
least one missing email between 09/10/22 and 18/10/22.

 

2. Why is the subject line of emails from QSS to LBRUT dated 18/10/22 and
24/10/22 redacted?

 

3. The response states "Please note that the attached emails and
spreadsheets have also been redacted of costs yet to go out to tender
under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000." But this is
incorrect since ALL estimated costs have been redacted even though only
Option 1 is going ahead and will be going through a tender process. I
therefore request that the estimated costs for Option 2 are provided
unredacted since this option is not being pursued and there is no tender
for this variant of the project.

 

4. The response states: "In addition it could be considered that the costs
were provided on a confidential basis on the understanding that they would
not be placed in the public domain." This is not an acceptable reason for
non disclosure. Firstly these are all estimates from a Quantity Surveyor
not specific costs from a supplier. Secondly any third party who engages
in correspondence with LBRUT should be well aware that it may be made
public through a FOI request.

 

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
[2]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Martin Baker

 

 

 

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

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[3][FOI #1082730 email]

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[4]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:

[5]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

[6]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

 

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.

 

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

IMPORTANT:
This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received
this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the
contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the
sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and
Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to
authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
3. mailto:[FOI #1082730 email]
4. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
5. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
6. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Official

Dear Mr Baker,

 

I refer to your request for an Internal Review received on 30/03/2024. 
You asked for a review of the information disclosed to you on 06/03/2024
in response to your FOI request received by the Council on 07/02/2024. 

 

I am sorry if you are dissatisfied with Richmond Council’s response to
your FOI request.  I have addressed the points raised in your review
request as follows:

 

The information provided is not complete.  On 16/03/24 I queried why QSS
says in an email dated 18/10/22 "thanks for sending these over" and was
told that the spreadsheet named 'QSS POTP 31.10.22 redacted.xlsx' was the
document in question but this is clearly incorrect since that document is
from QSS to LBRUT and it is dated AFTER this mention.  There is clearly at
least one missing email between 09/10/22 and 18/10/22.

 

Although as previously advised, the only attachment to the email trail was
the document, already disclosed to you, titled ‘QSS – POYP 31.10.22’, we
have now realised that what is being referred to are photographs that had
been provided separately.  Please find attached copies of these photos.

 

Why is the subject line of emails from QSS to LBRUT dated 18/10/22 and
24/10/22 redacted?

 

The subject line was a Council officer’s name and was therefore, redacted
under Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

The response states "Please note that the attached emails and spreadsheets
have also been redacted of costs yet to go out to tender under Section 43
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000."  But this is incorrect since ALL
estimated costs have been redacted even though only Option 1 is going
ahead and will be going through a tender process.  I therefore request
that the estimated costs for Option 2 are provided unredacted since this
option is not being pursued and there is no tender for this variant of the
project.  The response states: "In addition it could be considered that
the costs were provided on a confidential basis on the understanding that
they would not be placed in the public domain."  This is not an acceptable
reason for non disclosure.  Firstly these are all estimates from a
Quantity Surveyor not specific costs from a supplier.  Secondly any third
party who engages in correspondence with LBRUT should be well aware that
it may be made public through a FOI request.

 

Please note that Richmond Council still considers information on costs to
be exempt from disclosure under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 as there will be common elements in the pricing and percentages.

 

In this email thread between the LBRUT project officer and QS Support
Ltd.  A third (redacted) person is referred to by the Project officer in
their email sent at 0945hrs on 25/10/22 when they say "I will wait to hear
back from XXXX before feeding these back to you."  Please provide all
emails between this project officer and this third person in regards to
this Pools on the Park project.

 

As previously advised, Richmond Council has already provided copies of all
communications held between the Council and QS Support regarding options
for health suite at Pools on the Park. 

 

I hope this clarifies things.  If you are not content with the outcome of
the Internal Review, you have the right to apply directly to the
Information Commissioner for a decision at:
[1]https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

 

 

Regards,

 

Interim FOI Team Leader

Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Council

[2]www.richmond.gov.uk / [3]www.wandsworth.gov.uk

 

 

From: Martin Baker [4][email address]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 4:19 AM
To: FOI LBR [5][email address]
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Emails between LBRUT project
officer and redacted third person in regards to dealings with QS Support
Ltd

 

[You don't often get email from
[6][email address]. Learn why this is
important at [7]https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]

 

Dear Richmond upon Thames Borough Council,

 

This is a supplementary FOI request to LBR-FOI-04209.

 

In this email thread between the LBRUT project officer and QS Support Ltd:
[8]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

A third (redacted) person is referred to by the Project officer in their
email sent at 0945hrs on 25/10/22 when they say "I will wait to hear back
from XXXX before feeding these back to you."

 

Please provide all emails between this project officer and this third
person in regards to this Pools on the Park project.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Martin Baker

From: Martin Baker <[9][FOI #1082730 email]>
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2024 10:06 PM
To: FOI LBR <[10][email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request -
Communications between the council and QS Support Ltd in regards to health
suite area at Pools on the Park

 

Dear Richmond upon Thames Borough Council,

 

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

 

I am writing to request an internal review of Richmond upon Thames Borough
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Communications between the council
and QS Support Ltd in regards to health suite area at Pools on the Park'.

 

1. The information provided is not complete. On 16/03/24 I queried why QSS
says in an email dated 18/10/22 "thanks for sending these over" and was
told that the spreadsheet named 'QSS POTP 31.10.22 redacted.xlsx' was the
document in question but this is clearly incorrect since that document is
from QSS to LBRUT and it is dated AFTER this mention. There is clearly at
least one missing email between 09/10/22 and 18/10/22.

 

2. Why is the subject line of emails from QSS to LBRUT dated 18/10/22 and
24/10/22 redacted?

 

3. The response states "Please note that the attached emails and
spreadsheets have also been redacted of costs yet to go out to tender
under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000." But this is
incorrect since ALL estimated costs have been redacted even though only
Option 1 is going ahead and will be going through a tender process. I
therefore request that the estimated costs for Option 2 are provided
unredacted since this option is not being pursued and there is no tender
for this variant of the project.

 

4. The response states: "In addition it could be considered that the costs
were provided on a confidential basis on the understanding that they would
not be placed in the public domain." This is not an acceptable reason for
non disclosure. Firstly these are all estimates from a Quantity Surveyor
not specific costs from a supplier. Secondly any third party who engages
in correspondence with LBRUT should be well aware that it may be made
public through a FOI request.

 

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
[11]https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Martin Baker

 

From: FOI LBR [12][email address]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 3:13 PM
To: Martin Baker [13][FOI #1082730 email]
Subject: RE: LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park

 

Dear Mr Baker,

 

Thank you for your email

 

Richmond Council has already provided copies of all communications held
between the Council and QS Support regarding options for health suite at
Pools on the Park. 

 

The document referred to is titled ‘QSS – POYP 31.10.22’ and a redacted
copy was disclosed to you previously, but we have attached again now.

 

 

Regards,

 

FOI and DPA Officer

[14][email address]

From: Martin Baker <[15][FOI #1082730 email]>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 2:02 PM
To: FOI LBR <[16][email address]>
Subject: Re: LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park

 

Dear FOI LBR,

 

Thanks for the information but this does not appear to be complete and
there are also many duplicated emails.

 

You didn't redact one of the instances of (MD at QS Support) so I will use
his name from now on since it has been made public.

 

The Project Officer and (QS Support) had a site meeting at Pools on the
Park on 12/10/22. One would expect some communication after the meeting to
confirm what was discussed but the next email is dated on the evening of
18/10/22 where says "thanks for sending these over". What was sent to and
where is that email?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Martin Baker

 

From: FOI LBR [17][email address]
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 10:55 AM
To: Martin Baker [18][FOI #1082730 email]
Subject: LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park

 

Request for Information - LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park

 

I refer to your request for information received on 07 February 2024. 
Please see the information below and attached in response to your request:
-

 

Your Request:

 

Please provide all communications between the Council and QS Support Ltd
in regards to the two options for the health suite area at Pools on the
Park that culminated in project estimates of £140K and £210K in a document
dated 31/10/22?

 

Our Response:

 

Please see attached emails, which have been redacted of staff and
contractor’s names and contact details under Section 40 (2)(b) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000, as releasing personal information
relating to other individuals would breach the Data Protection
principles.  Please note that this is an absolute exemption under the
Freedom of Information Act and therefore the public interest test does not
apply.

 

Please note that the attached emails and spreadsheets have also been
redacted of costs yet to go out to tender under Section 43 of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000.  Section 43 states that information is exempt
from disclosure if its disclosure would or would be likely to, prejudice
the commercial interests of any person, including the public authority
holding it.  This exemption requires the Council to consider the public
interest test and, whilst the Council recognises the public interest in
the transparency of the procurement process, it must consider the strong
public interest in securing best value for taxpayers.  In addition it
could be considered that the costs were provided on a confidential basis
on the understanding that they would not be placed in the public domain. 
As a consequence, the greater public interest lies in withholding these
parts of the requested information.

 

If you do not understand the information provided or wish to discuss
anything further, please feel free to contact us.

 

Please note, all material provided by Richmond Council in response to your
request for information is for your personal, non-commercial use. The
Council reserves all rights in the copyright of the information
provided.  Any unauthorised copying or adaptation of the information
without express written confirmation from the Council may constitute an
infringement of copyright. Any intention to re-use this information
commercially may require consent.  Please forward any requests for re-use
of information to the FOI officer.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the information provided in relation to your
request, you may make representations to the Information and Transparency
Manager.  Any such request for an internal review should be made within 40
days from today's date.  Correspondence should be addressed to:
[19][email address]

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision
at: [20]https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

 

 

Regards,

 

FOI and DPA Officer

[21][email address]

 
From: Martin Baker <[22][FOI #1082730 email]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 2:19 PM
To: FOI LBR <[23][email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Communications between the
council and QS Support Ltd in regards to health suite area at Pools on the
Park

 

[You don't often get email from
[24][FOI #1082730 email]. Learn why this is
important at [25]https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]

 

Dear Richmond upon Thames Borough Council,

 

Please provide all communications between the council and QS Support Ltd
in regards to the two options for the health suite area at Pools on the
Park that culminated in project estimates of £140K and £210K in a document
dated 31/10/22.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Martin Baker

 

IMPORTANT:
This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received
this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the
contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the
sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and
Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to
authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
2. http://www.richmond.gov.uk/
3. http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/
4. mailto:[email address]
5. mailto:[email address]
6. mailto:[email address]
7. https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific...
8. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
9. mailto:[FOI #1082730 email]
10. mailto:[email address]
11. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
12. mailto:[email address]
13. mailto:[FOI #1082730 email]
14. mailto:[email address]
15. mailto:[FOI #1082730 email]
16. mailto:[email address]
17. mailto:[email address]
18. mailto:[FOI #1082730 email]
19. mailto:[email address]
20. https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
21. mailto:[email address]
22. mailto:[FOI #1082730 email]
23. mailto:[email address]
24. mailto:[FOI #1082730 email]
25. https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific...

Official

Dear Mr Baker,

Please note that Richmond Council responded to your Internal Review on 09/05/2024 and this FOI request is now closed. If you are not content with the outcome of the Internal Review, you have the right to apply directly to the ICO for a decision at: https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

Regards,

FOI and DPA Officer
[email address]

From: Martin Baker <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 11:24 AM
To: FOI LBR <[email address]>
Subject: RE: LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park - Internal Review

Dear FOI LBR,

When can I expect an acknowledgement for my internal review request?

It is not acceptable practice for the FOI officer to choose to respond to request B by including it within an internal review of request A when request B cannot fall within the scope of request A.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Baker

From: FOI LBR <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 2:04 PM
To: Martin Baker <[email address]>; Martin Baker <[FOI #1082730 email]>
Subject: RE: LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park - Internal Review
Importance: High

Dear Mr Baker,

I refer to your request for an Internal Review received on 30/03/2024. You asked for a review of the information disclosed to you on 06/03/2024 in response to your FOI request received by the Council on 07/02/2024.

I am sorry if you are dissatisfied with Richmond Council's response to your FOI request. I have addressed the points raised in your review request as follows:

The information provided is not complete. On 16/03/24 I queried why QSS says in an email dated 18/10/22 "thanks for sending these over" and was told that the spreadsheet named 'QSS POTP 31.10.22 redacted.xlsx' was the document in question but this is clearly incorrect since that document is from QSS to LBRUT and it is dated AFTER this mention. There is clearly at least one missing email between 09/10/22 and 18/10/22.

Although as previously advised, the only attachment to the email trail was the document, already disclosed to you, titled 'QSS - POYP 31.10.22', we have now realised that what is being referred to are photographs that had been provided separately. Please find attached copies of these photos.

Why is the subject line of emails from QSS to LBRUT dated 18/10/22 and 24/10/22 redacted?

The subject line was a Council officer's name and was therefore, redacted under Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The response states "Please note that the attached emails and spreadsheets have also been redacted of costs yet to go out to tender under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000." But this is incorrect since ALL estimated costs have been redacted even though only Option 1 is going ahead and will be going through a tender process. I therefore request that the estimated costs for Option 2 are provided unredacted since this option is not being pursued and there is no tender for this variant of the project. The response states: "In addition it could be considered that the costs were provided on a confidential basis on the understanding that they would not be placed in the public domain." This is not an acceptable reason for non disclosure. Firstly these are all estimates from a Quantity Surveyor not specific costs from a supplier. Secondly any third party who engages in correspondence with LBRUT should be well aware that it may be made public through a FOI request.

Please note that Richmond Council still considers information on costs to be exempt from disclosure under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as there will be common elements in the pricing and percentages.

In this email thread between the LBRUT project officer and QS Support Ltd. A third (redacted) person is referred to by the Project officer in their email sent at 0945hrs on 25/10/22 when they say "I will wait to hear back from XXXX before feeding these back to you." Please provide all emails between this project officer and this third person in regards to this Pools on the Park project.

As previously advised, Richmond Council has already provided copies of all communications held between the Council and QS Support regarding options for health suite at Pools on the Park.

I hope this clarifies things. If you are not content with the outcome of the Internal Review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision at: https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

Regards,

Interim FOI Team Leader
Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Council
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/ / http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/

From: Martin Baker [email address]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 4:19 AM
To: FOI LBR [email address]
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Emails between LBRUT project officer and redacted third person in regards to dealings with QS Support Ltd

[You don't often get email from [email address]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]

Dear Richmond upon Thames Borough Council,

This is a supplementary FOI request to LBR-FOI-04209.

In this email thread between the LBRUT project officer and QS Support Ltd: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

A third (redacted) person is referred to by the Project officer in their email sent at 0945hrs on 25/10/22 when they say "I will wait to hear back from XXXX before feeding these back to you."

Please provide all emails between this project officer and this third person in regards to this Pools on the Park project.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Baker

From: Martin Baker <[FOI #1082730 email]>
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2024 10:06 PM
To: FOI LBR <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Communications between the council and QS Support Ltd in regards to health suite area at Pools on the Park

Dear Richmond upon Thames Borough Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Richmond upon Thames Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Communications between the council and QS Support Ltd in regards to health suite area at Pools on the Park'.

1. The information provided is not complete. On 16/03/24 I queried why QSS says in an email dated 18/10/22 "thanks for sending these over" and was told that the spreadsheet named 'QSS POTP 31.10.22 redacted.xlsx' was the document in question but this is clearly incorrect since that document is from QSS to LBRUT and it is dated AFTER this mention. There is clearly at least one missing email between 09/10/22 and 18/10/22.

2. Why is the subject line of emails from QSS to LBRUT dated 18/10/22 and 24/10/22 redacted?

3. The response states "Please note that the attached emails and spreadsheets have also been redacted of costs yet to go out to tender under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000." But this is incorrect since ALL estimated costs have been redacted even though only Option 1 is going ahead and will be going through a tender process. I therefore request that the estimated costs for Option 2 are provided unredacted since this option is not being pursued and there is no tender for this variant of the project.

4. The response states: "In addition it could be considered that the costs were provided on a confidential basis on the understanding that they would not be placed in the public domain." This is not an acceptable reason for non disclosure. Firstly these are all estimates from a Quantity Surveyor not specific costs from a supplier. Secondly any third party who engages in correspondence with LBRUT should be well aware that it may be made public through a FOI request.

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

Yours faithfully,

Martin Baker

From: FOI LBR [email address]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 3:13 PM
To: Martin Baker [FOI #1082730 email]
Subject: RE: LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park

Dear Mr Baker,

Thank you for your email

Richmond Council has already provided copies of all communications held between the Council and QS Support regarding options for health suite at Pools on the Park.

The document referred to is titled 'QSS - POYP 31.10.22' and a redacted copy was disclosed to you previously, but we have attached again now.

Regards,

FOI and DPA Officer
[email address]

From: Martin Baker <[FOI #1082730 email]>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 2:02 PM
To: FOI LBR <[email address]>
Subject: Re: LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park

Dear FOI LBR,

Thanks for the information but this does not appear to be complete and there are also many duplicated emails.

You didn't redact one of the instances of (MD at QS Support) so I will use his name from now on since it has been made public.

The Project Officer and (QS Support) had a site meeting at Pools on the Park on 12/10/22. One would expect some communication after the meeting to confirm what was discussed but the next email is dated on the evening of 18/10/22 where says "thanks for sending these over". What was sent to and where is that email?

Yours sincerely,

Martin Baker

From: FOI LBR [email address]
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 10:55 AM
To: Martin Baker [FOI #1082730 email]
Subject: LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park

Request for Information - LBR-FOI-04209 - Pools on the Park

I refer to your request for information received on 07 February 2024. Please see the information below and attached in response to your request: -

Your Request:

Please provide all communications between the Council and QS Support Ltd in regards to the two options for the health suite area at Pools on the Park that culminated in project estimates of £140K and £210K in a document dated 31/10/22?

Our Response:

Please see attached emails, which have been redacted of staff and contractor's names and contact details under Section 40 (2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as releasing personal information relating to other individuals would breach the Data Protection principles. Please note that this is an absolute exemption under the Freedom of Information Act and therefore the public interest test does not apply.

Please note that the attached emails and spreadsheets have also been redacted of costs yet to go out to tender under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Section 43 states that information is exempt from disclosure if its disclosure would or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person, including the public authority holding it. This exemption requires the Council to consider the public interest test and, whilst the Council recognises the public interest in the transparency of the procurement process, it must consider the strong public interest in securing best value for taxpayers. In addition it could be considered that the costs were provided on a confidential basis on the understanding that they would not be placed in the public domain. As a consequence, the greater public interest lies in withholding these parts of the requested information.

If you do not understand the information provided or wish to discuss anything further, please feel free to contact us.

Please note, all material provided by Richmond Council in response to your request for information is for your personal, non-commercial use. The Council reserves all rights in the copyright of the information provided. Any unauthorised copying or adaptation of the information without express written confirmation from the Council may constitute an infringement of copyright. Any intention to re-use this information commercially may require consent. Please forward any requests for re-use of information to the FOI officer.

If you are dissatisfied with the information provided in relation to your request, you may make representations to the Information and Transparency Manager. Any such request for an internal review should be made within 40 days from today's date. Correspondence should be addressed to: [email address]

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision at: https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

Regards,

FOI and DPA Officer
[email address]

From: Martin Baker <[FOI #1082730 email]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 2:19 PM
To: FOI LBR <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Communications between the council and QS Support Ltd in regards to health suite area at Pools on the Park

[You don't often get email from [FOI #1082730 email]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]

Dear Richmond upon Thames Borough Council,

Please provide all communications between the council and QS Support Ltd in regards to the two options for the health suite area at Pools on the Park that culminated in project estimates of £140K and £210K in a document dated 31/10/22.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Baker

IMPORTANT:
This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.