We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Sarah Joseph please sign in and let everyone know.

Contract, Claims, Service Information & Claims Handling Proceedure

We're waiting for Sarah Joseph to read a recent response and update the status.

Dear Transport for London,
i cannot see that you have answerd my request in full.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
i have bene referred to a response from you -
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
******* The £10k threshold applies to work carried out as a result of 3^rd party
damage. The contractor can seek reimbursement from the 3^rd party. The
contractor is not obliged to use contractual prices when seeking
reimbursement from 3^rd parties *******

*how do the rates differ.
*what does the contract say about the rates that can be used and how the contractors must conduct themselves
*what is the service information - i am seeking a copy
* what is the claims handling procedure - i am seeking a copy

Yours faithfully,

Sarah Joseph

third Party Claims
87
87.1
In relation to Claim
s against Third Parties, the
Contractor
complies at all times
with the relevant provisions of the Service Information.
87.2
For the avoidance of doubt, the
Contractor’s
compliance with clause 87.1 shall
not constitute a compensation event or result in a
change to the Prices or in an
allowance of time.
87.3
Where the Service Information incorporates or includes reference to a claims
handling procedure in relation to claims from third parties the Parties agree that
all claims by third parties for Third Pa
rty Losses shall be handled in accordance
with
such claims handling procedure.

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Ms Joseph

 

TfL Ref:          IRV-131-1617

 

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received on 6
February 2017.

 

You have stated that you are dissatisfied with the handling of your
request for information under the Freedom of Information Act and that the
response to your request was incomplete.

 

The review will be conducted by an internal review panel in accordance
with TfL’s Internal Review Procedure, which is available via the following
URL:

 

[1]http://content.tfl.gov.uk/internal-revie...

 

Every effort will be made to provide you with a response by 6 March 2017.
However, if the review will not be completed by this date, we will contact
you and notify you of the revised response date as soon as possible.

 

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
feel free to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

Information Access Advisor

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[2][TfL request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

when will i receive my information. why has it not been supplied. why have i not been updated.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Joseph

Dear FOI,
when will i receive the information
Yours sincerely,

Sarah Joseph

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Ms Joseph

Thank you for your e-mail regarding your outstanding internal review. I apologise for not providing you with an update.

We are still processing your internal review request and have had to seek further advice regarding the requested information. We are having a meeting next week to discuss the issues raised in your internal review and hope to provide a response following this. I apologise for the inconvenience caused by this delay.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob
FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London

[TfL request email]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

i have waited patiently, it is apparent I am not to be provided the information.

please explain your conduct.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Joseph

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Joseph

 

TfL Ref:          IRV-131-1617

 

I am contacting you regarding the internal review of your request for
information about claims for third party damage to the TfL Road Network
(TLRN).

 

This review has been carried out by an independent panel following your
e-mail of 6 February 2017 regarding the response to your request for
information under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. The review was
carried out by an independent Review Panel (‘the Panel’) consisting of
individuals who were not involved in the handling of your request. The
panel apologise for the delay in answering your request for internal
review.

 

Your initial request for information asked for, ‘a copy of the contract
with Kier Highways Ltd. I have seen that highways England have done so.
Are the rates Kier Highways Ltd charging TFL for repairs to highways
England the same as the rates Kier Highways Ltd charge third parties such
as drivers who hit barriers or lamps etc.? if not, why not - please
provide all information you hold about this?’

 

A response was issued to you on 18 November 2016 and a copy of the
contract provided. In regard to the rates charged by Kier Highways to TfL
and third parties, this information was withheld under section 43(2) as
disclosure of this information could prejudice our commercial interests,
as well as those of Kier Highways.

 

The Panel have reviewed the handling of your original request. LoHAC have
gone through our procurement procedure, as such we are happy that we have
secured the best value. Their charges to TfL were considered alongside the
other services provided to us under LoHAC, which includes the regular
maintenance of the TLRN as well as any emergency works required to ensure
the TLRN remains safe. The lump sum paid to our contractors to carry out
these works is indexed for inflation and was negotiated to provide the
best value. Any charges made to third parties are a decision made by the
contractors.

 

As requested in your internal review, please see section 2.24 of the
attached Service Information (Common) for the Central LoHAC which refers
to third party damage. Please note that this document is the same for all
four LoHACs. The contract does not provide a provision for the contractor
to show TfL the rates it charges to third parties, therefore we do not
hold the information you have requested on the prices charged to third
parties or the process they follow when collecting these charges. This
should have been made clear in our original response.

 

Please note that in accordance with TfL’s obligations under the Data
Protection Act 1998 (DPA) some personal data has been removed, as required
by section 40(2) of the FOI Act. This is because disclosure of this
personal data would be a breach of the DPA, specifically the first
principle of the DPA which requires all processing of personal data to be
fair and lawful. It would not be fair to disclose this personal
information when the individuals have no expectation it would be disclosed
and TfL has not satisfied one of the conditions of Schedule 2 of the Data
Protection Act which would make the processing ‘fair’.

 

We have re-examined the application of section 43(2) in regard to the
rates charged by Kier Highways to TfL. The disclosure of the rates TfL pay
would be likely to affect our ability to negotiate in any future tenders.
As stated in our response, ‘There are other companies who provide similar
services and disclosure of the price we currently pay could hinder the
ability of Kier Highways to competitively tender for similar contracts in
the future as well as hinder our ability to negotiate the best value for
money for similar services in the future.’

 

The Panel have also considered the public interest in the use of section
43(2) and concluded that the balance lies in favour of withholding the
information. Whilst the public interest test will naturally favour the
release of information in the pursuit of openness and transparency, when
looking at disclosure requests for contractual information we have to be
mindful of different commercial risks. These include consideration of the
likelihood that if detailed pricing information were disclosed it would
likely result in a clustering of bids based on previously negotiated
payments when we next go out to tender for the same or similar contracts.
The commercial interests of the contractors would be prejudiced by
disclosure as they compete with other firms for similar works across the
country.

 

Releasing this information would also be prejudicial to each company’s
ability to compete for tendering opportunities with TfL and other
companies in the future, as their competitive edge would inevitably be
prejudiced by disclosure of a detailed breakdown of their price. The Panel
give significant weight to the argument that this contract is not unique,
we hold three similar contracts under LoHAC with companies who also
compete with other providers for similar contracts with other authorities
which come up for tender at different times. The Panel consider that
disclosure of the price information you seek would hinder TfL’s ability to
obtain best value for public money in future negotiations, and prejudice
the commercial interests of suppliers, which in this instance out weighs
the public interest in disclosure.

 

More information on this contract can be found on our [1]website, in this
instance the panel agree that section 43(2) has appropriately been engaged
and your complaint has not been upheld.

 

I hope this information is of assistance. If you are dissatisfied with the
outcome of this internal review, you can refer the matter to the
independent authority responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Information
Act at the following address:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

 

A complaint form is available on the ICO’s website ([2]www.ico.gov.uk).

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

Information Access Advisor

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[3][TfL request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

i do not accept that you should withhold the contract or not release this without removing any commercially sensitive information.

cc information commissioner Ref. FS50688840

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Joseph

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

I am following this request and wills end a pm re recent exchanges with TfL. inote:
"LoHAC have gone through our procurement procedure, as such we are happy that we have secured the best value. Their charges to TfL were considered alongside the
other services provided to us under LoHAC, which includes the regular maintenance of the TLRN as well as any emergency works required to ensure the TLRN remains safe. The lump sum paid to our contractors to carry out
these works is indexed for inflation and was negotiated to provide the best value. Any charges made to third parties are a decision made by the contractors."
It appears TfL have protected themselves but not Third Parties i.e. that their contractors can charge what they can get away with. You may wish to review:
http://www.claimsmag.co.uk/2017/07/highw...
Of course, the advantage we had before the Judge when contesting Kier Highways charges with those presented to Highways England was that we knew some of the charges to HE and we had sight of the contract - it was disclosed. So much for transparency at TfL.
Do note that Kier Highways (as an example) charge Third Parties in TfL areas using the same process and rates as in most HE Areas - and these rates are excessive.
For example, in late 2015 the rate for Third Parties jumped over night for an AIW from about £32 / hour to £70 / hour. If TfL agreed to pay a 100% increase someone needs to be asking questions about the public purse. If TfL have not been subject to a similar increase, why not and why have TfL permitted this situation to arise?
Before late 2015, TfL road users (Third Parties - drivers, fleets and insurers) were subject to a process (1153) that saw them charged a basic attendance fee of £4700 following an incident. But the process was flawed. It appears TfL did not identify that annual charges were being divided by 1153 when the figure should have been about 5400 i.e. drivers, fleets and insurers were charged almost 5x what they should have been simply due to this 'error'.

Dear FOI,
Thanks. please send pm. i have a claim that was about £4700 in 2015. it is less now. £70.32 /hr charged for aiw and over £30/hr for their van. that's over £240/day!
can i send you the bill for review?
Yours sincerely,
Sarah Joseph

Dear FOI,

Your response does not explain what applies. In what areas does ‘Service 24’ apply and does section 2.24 apply to all areas. If not why not and what does apply what is the alternative?
It seems damage is paid for by TfL by the a lump sum
What does supplement payment mean 2.24.3

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Joseph

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Ms Joseph      

 

Our Ref:         FOI-1652-1718

 

Thank you for your request received on 23 September 2017 asking for
further information about the Central LoHAC.

 

Your request will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. 

 

Your request will be processed by TfL, the Greater London Authority and
its subsidiaries to provide you with a response in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.

 

A response will be sent to you by 20 April 2017. We publish a substantial
range of information on our website on subjects including operational
performance, contracts, expenditure, journey data, governance and our
financial performance. This includes data which is frequently asked for in
FOI requests or other public queries. Please check
[1]http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transpar... to see if this helps you.

 

We will publish anonymised versions of requests and responses on the
[2]www.tfl.gov.uk website. We will not publish your name and we will send
a copy of the response to you before it is published on our website.

 

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[3][TfL request email]

 

 

Dear FOI,

thanks

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Joseph

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Joseph

 

Our Ref:         FOI-1652-1718

 

Thank you for your request received on 23 September 2017 asking for
further information about the Central LoHAC.

 

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can
confirm we do hold the information you require. You asked for:

 

Your response does not explain what applies. In what areas does ‘Service
24’ apply and does section 2.24 apply to all areas. If not why not and
what does apply what is the alternative?

 

Service 24, Third Party Damage, applies to all parts of the TfL Road
Network (TLRN).

 

It seems damage is paid for by TfL by the a lump sum What does supplement
payment mean 2.24.3

 

The Freedom of Information Act gives a right to individuals to access
recorded information held by a public authority at the time the request is
received. We do not hold recorded information regarding this question.

 

If this is not the information you are looking for please feel free to
contact me.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

Dear FOI,

i am asking you to clarify your response, to explain what is meant by your phraseology. i understand this is required under FoIA. please do so to make the reply meaningful.

please also supply the information that has resulted in TfL selecting contractors by use of low price.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Joseph

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Ms Joseph

 

Thank you for your further e-mail regarding your request for information
about the Central LoHAC.

 

As previously advised, the Freedom of Information Act gives a right to
individuals to access recorded information held by a public authority at
the time the request is received. We have supplied the relevant
information that we hold in relation to your request.  We do not hold
information on the meaning of terms in the LoHAC contract or how they
should be interpreted.

 

As stated in our previous responses, the LoHAC contractor has gone through
our public procurement procedure.  This was based on both quality and
price criteria.  As such we are happy that we have secured the best value.
The contractor’s charges to TfL for Service 24 were considered as a part
of the wider tender for the various services which the contractor provides
to us under the LoHAC contract.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

 

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Sarah Joseph please sign in and let everyone know.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org