Cycle Hire Contract - redacted information

The request was successful.

Dear Transport for London,

Many thanks for making a redacted version of the London Cycle Hire Scheme Agreement available on your website: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartner...

Please could you send me:

1) A list of the 100 "Priority 1" docking stations mentioned in the SLA (Schedule 5).

2) The text from clause 49 of the main Agreement, headed "Liability"

3) The redacted text from Schedule 17 relating to the Guarantor & trigger amount

4) The redacted text from Schedule 5 relating to the Service Level Agreements:
--4a) clause 2.7
--4b) Annex A "Performance Indicator Table")

5) The Financial Model from Schedule 7 Annex A "Charging"

6) The redacted text from Schedule 23 "Gainsharing"

7) The redacted text from Schedule 6 "Termination Compensation"

8) A list of section / paragraph, annex & table headings from Schedule 28 "Service Provider Solution"

I believe that the redactions in the online version of the agreement have been excessive (especially with respect to financial information, where all has been completely redacted), and not in the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, especially as the tendering process has completed, and the contract is in operation. You will need to show that any prejudice to commercial interests of either TfL or Serco is “real, actual or of substance” (Lord Falconer of Thoronton, Hansard HL VOL. 162, April 20, 2000, col. 827)

Given the large costs of implementing & running the LCHS, there is considerable public interest in ensuring that taxpayers have obtained good value for money from the tendering process. TfL has historically published pricing elements of contracts (eg for the PPP Tube Lines Contract http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/mode..., so there is precedence for you to do so in this case.

Transparency & public scrutiny of the terms of operation of the cycle hire scheme is therefore essential.

Yours faithfully,

Alex Skene

FOI, Transport for London

Our Ref: FOI-0155-1011

Date: 17.12.2010

Dear Mr Skene

Thank you for your e-mail received by Transport for London (TfL) on 16
December 2010 asking for information about the Barclays Cycle Hire
contract.

Your request will be processed in accordance with TfL's Freedom of
Information Act 2000 procedure and a response will be provided to you by
19 January 2011 in accordance with the Act.

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

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

Corporate Governance Directorate

General Counsel

Transport for London

[1][TfL request email]

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

2 Attachments

Our Ref: FOI-0155-1011

Date: 19.01.2011

Dear Mr Skene

Thank you for your e-mail received by Transport for London (TfL) on 16
December 2010 asking for information about TfL's contract with Serco for
the operation of the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme. You asked for the
disclosure of those parts of the contract which have been redacted from
the version published on TfL's website at
[1]http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartner...

Your request has been dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and I can confirm that TfL does hold the information
you have requested.

1) A list of the 100 "Priority 1" docking stations mentioned in the SLA
(Schedule 5).

Please find attached a list of the 100 priority one docking stations.
These stations have been identified as their successful operation is
considered crucial to the overall success of the Barclays Cycle Hire
Scheme.

2) The text from clause 49 of the main Agreement, headed "Liability"

3) The redacted text from Schedule 17 relating to the Guarantor & trigger
amount

4) The redacted text from Schedule 5 relating to the Service Level
Agreements: 4a) clause 2.7 4b) Annex A "Performance Indicator Table")

5) The Financial Model from Schedule 7 Annex A "Charging"

6) The redacted text from Schedule 23 "Gainsharing"

7) The redacted text from Schedule 6 "Termination Compensation"

8) A list of section / paragraph, annex & table headings from Schedule 28
"Service Provider Solution

TfL is not obliged to supply the information you have requested in
questions 2 - 8 above, as it is subject to the following statutory
exemption to the right of access to information:

. Section 43(2) - Commercial Interests

This exemption application is on the basis that the release of the
information requested is likely to be prejudicial to the commercial
interests of TfL and/or Serco. Disclosing the redacted information you
have requested would prejudice TfL's position in ensuring it has an
unconstrained bargaining leverage in any future contract negotiations and
likewise Serco would suffer prejudice to its commercial interests if its
intellectual property and financial costs of providing this service were
disclosed, both in the context of their approach to their negotiation of
contracts with other third parties and in the context of them competing
with other bidders in any future re-procurement TfL might do for the
Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme.

The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the public
interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned.
Whilst TfL recognises the need for openness and transparency with Public
Authorities, in this instance the public interest in seeing that TfL
obtains the best value for public money from service procurement outweighs
the general public interest in increasing transparency of TfL's processes.

Each request received by TfL for the disclosure of information is dealt
with on its merits and the information requested is considered against the
obligations, and exemptions, in the FOI Act. In this case we consider, as
explained above, that section 43(2) applies to the information you have
requested in questions 2-8. This exemption has also been applied to parts
of other contracts which TfL has published. The fact it was not applied to
the PPP contracts to which you refer does not constitute a precedent
requiring us to disclose the information you have requested.

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

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

Corporate Governance Directorate

General Counsel

Transport for London

[2][TfL request email]

==

show quoted sections

Dear Transport for London,

FOI Request: Cycle Hire Contract - redacted information
Your Ref: FOI-0155-1011

Many thanks for providing the information in respect of my Q1.

I am writing to request an internal review of Transport for London's handling of my FOI request 'Cycle Hire Contract - redacted information'.

I wish to appeal your decision to refuse to provide the information for Q2-Q8. The grounds of my appeal are:

A) You applied a blanket refusal to the information as a whole, without looking at each item on a case-by-case basis. This is contrary to the rulings of the Information Tribunal in Guardian Newspapers & Brooke V ICO & BBC (para 87.2) (EA/2006/0011 & EA/2006/00110013)

"[...] the public authority is not permitted to maintain a blanket refusal in relation to the type of information sought. The authority may have a general policy that the public interest is likely to be in favour of maintaining the exemption in respect of a specific type of information, but any such policy must be flexibly applied, with genuine consideration being given to the circumstances of the particular request"

Different levels of prejudice & public interest will apply to different items, so I would request that you re-examine each item as a result.

B) You said that disclosure is "likely to be prejudicial to the commercial interests of TfL and/or Serco".

"Likely to prejudice" is referred to by the Tribunal in John Connor Press Associates Ltd v ICO (EA/2005/0005):

"We interpret the expression “likely to prejudice” as meaning that the chance of prejudice being suffered should be more than a hypothetical or remote possibility; there must have been a real and significant risk."

I would request that you review your balance of the public interest test given this lower level of potential prejudice and its effect on the balance of the public interest test, in conjunction with the useful guidance provided in the ICO's Line to Take LTT13 http://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.php?tit...

C) You said that disclosure would prejudice subsequent "future re-procurement TfL might do for the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme". Also in John Connor Press Associates Ltd v ICO (EA/2005/0005), the Information Tribunal ruled that this argument needs to "depend on the nature of the information and the degree of similarity between the two transactions".

Given the bespoke and individually negotiated nature of the current contract with Serco, I have doubts that any future contract would be identical (or at least very similar) to this one.

There are further public interest arguments in favour of disclosure:
- it would enable other companies to compete on an equal footing to Serco, without it retaining its unfair advantage of having sole access to the information.
- In the Information Tribunal hearing of the DoH v ICO (EA/2008/0018) the Tribunal warned against ‘cosy’ relationships that can develop between public authorities and incumbent contractors in long running contracts. The Tribunal pointed out that whilst such relationship may allow the smooth running of a contract they can also reduce innovation and value for money. Serco has a long standing relationship with TfL providing many of its services (eg Traffic Signals, DLR, etc).

E) I separately dispute that Section 43(2) applies to every item of information you have withheld. Please re-examine this for the following items.
- Q2 about Liability
- Q3 for the name of the Guarantor (and possibly for the trigger level)
- Q4 for information on the SLAs
- Q8 for a list of section/paragraph headings from Schedule 28

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

Yours faithfully,

Alex Skene

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

07 February 2011

Our ref: IRV-110-1011

Dear Mr Skene

Thank you for your email in which you requested an internal review of TfL’s response to your Freedom of Information request.

An internal review will be conducted in accordance with the attached procedure. A response will be provided as soon as possible and in any event by 04 March 2011.

Please contact me if you would like to discuss this matter.

Kind regards

Matthew Towey | Information Governance Adviser
Information Access & Compliance Team | Corporate Governance | Transport for London
5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 3063/ auto 63063

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

03 March 2011

Our ref: IRV-110-1011

Dear Mr Skene

I refer to my email of 07 February concerning the internal review of your FOI request.

We have held an initial review meeting and the review Panel was not convinced that section 43 could be upheld in relation to all of the information redacted from the contract. The Panel agreed that if the business wishes to withhold this information under section 43 a more detailed assessment needs to be undertaken to determine whether TfL's or Serco's commercial interests would be prejudiced if the redacted information was disclosed.

As part of this assessment the business area has asked for more time so that they can hold discussions with Serco. We will, therefore, be unable to communicate the outcome of the review by 04 March, though I anticipate that we will be in a position to provide our decision on each of the redacted sections within the next 2 weeks.

I am sorry for the delay. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this matter.

Kind regards

Matthew Towey | Information Governance Adviser
Information Access & Compliance Team | Corporate Governance | Transport for London
5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 3063/ auto 63063

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Skene

I write to provide an update on the status of the internal review.

Serco has provided a response to our queries regarding the application of section 43 but their response was not sufficiently detailed. We have requested that Serco provides more detail to support their view that the redacted information should not be disclosed.

The business area will chase a response today as they are meeting with them, on a separate issue, this afternoon.

I will provide an update to you next. I am sorry for the ongoing delay.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Towey | Information Governance Adviser
Information Access & Compliance Team | Corporate Governance | Transport for London
5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 3063/ auto 63063

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Towey,

Your ref: FOI-0155-1011

Many thanks for keeping me informed, this is very much appreciated.

Can I presume that as holders of the information, TfL will exercise its own discretion and retain the final say on whether to release or not the redacted information if the discussions with Serco remain inconclusive?

Yours sincerely,

Alex Skene

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Skene

Thank you for your email. I can confirm that as the public authority which holds the information you have requested we will have the final say on whether to release the information.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Towey | Information Governance Adviser
Information Access & Compliance Team | Corporate Governance | Transport for London
5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 3063/ auto 63063

TfL has recently adopted an ‘information security classification scheme’ to help protect its information assets. If you work for TfL or one of its subsidiaries and want to find out how this affects you, see the new Quick Guide or visit Source for more information.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Towey,

Refs FOI-0155-1011, IRV-110-1011

I'd be very grateful if you could provide me with an update on when you anticipate being able to complete my internal review request, as it has taken 2 months so far.

I'd also like to bring to your attention a further ICO decision on s43 which provides further grounds that the information I've requested should be disclosed in full.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...

Yours sincerely,

Alex Skene

Towey Matthew, Transport for London

Dear Mr Skene

Thank you for your email.

I am very sorry it has taken so long to provide you with the outcome of the review. Serco has provided some comments on the redacted sections of the contract but we have asked for further detail by Friday. If no response is received by Friday a decision will be taken by TfL without further reference to them. I expect that we will be in a position to respond by next Monday.

Thank you for brining that decision notice to my attention. As it is 51 pages long I will need a bit of time to read through it!

Kind regards

Matthew Towey | Information Governance Adviser
Information Access & Compliance Team | Corporate Governance | Transport for London
5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 3063/ auto 63063

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Skene

We received more detailed submissions from Serco yesterday. They will considered tomorrow and a decision will be taken on whether section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act applies to the information Serco wish to remain redacted.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Towey | Information Governance Adviser
Information Access & Compliance Team | Corporate Governance | Transport for London
5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 3063/ auto 63063

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

5 Attachments

14 April 2011

Our ref: IRV-110-1011

Dear Mr Skene

The internal review of your Freedom of Information request has been completed. Please accept my apologies for the delay in this response.

The review was conducted by an internal review panel ('the Panel') in accordance with TfL's internal review procedure. The Panel reviewed all redacted material in light of guidance issued by the Office of Government Commerce and relevant ICO decision notices and Tribunal decisions. The Panel queried the application of section 43 to the redacted material and agreed that if TfL wished to maintain reliance on this section further submissions should be sought from the relevant business area and the Service Provider, Serco.

Following discussions with the business area and Serco the application of section 43(2) was upheld in relation to the following information for the reasons outlined in our response of 19 January 2011.

• Schedule 7 Annex A – Financial model

• Schedule 28 – Service Provider Solution

• Information contained in Schedule 23 in relation to Gainsharing

• Paragraph 2.7 in Schedule 5.

The application of section 43(2) to all other redacted information was overturned. The revised documents will be added to the TfL website as soon as possible but in the meantime please find PDF copies attached.

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 (www.ico.gov.uk).

Yours sincerely

Matthew Towey | Information Governance Adviser
Information Access & Compliance Team | Corporate Governance | Transport for London
5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 3063/ auto 63063

Dear Mr Towey,

Your ref: IRV-110-1011

Many thanks for sending through the documents, and for your assistance (& persistence!) in getting the IR completed.

Kind regards
Alex Skene

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

Appeal sent today to ICO regarding the withheld information.

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

ICO ref FS50387116

Josh Smith left an annotation ()

Alex,

Thanks for this request; it's interesting reading.

You worded your request for an internal review far more eloquently than I think I ever could!

I requested a copy of the Cycle Hire Critical Improvement Plan, and TfL claimed a section 43 exemption in much the same way as they did with you. I hope you don't mind, but I reused some of your wording in my internal review request:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ba...

Thanks,

Josh

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

Josh - good luck with your appeal!

On 7 October, the ICO gave an update on my case:

=======
Since I last wrote to you I have obtained copies of the withheld information and a response from TfL to your complaint. As part of its response TfL has identified some information which had previously been withheld as now suitable for release. This information is listed below and I will arrange for this information to be made available to you in due course.

- Clause 2.7 of schedule 5, relating to the service level agreements
- The redacted text from schedule 23 “Gainsharing”

TfL has said that it is prepared to release some of the information previously redacted from this schedule although it is still seeking to rely on section 43(2) for a small amount of financial information where disclosure would have the effect of disclosing Serco’s profit margins.

The remaining information including the financial Model from Schedule 7 Annex A and the list of section/paragraph, annex & table headings from schedule 28 continues to be withheld under the section 43(2) exemption. In your previous email you asked to be kept informed of any new exemptions cited by TfL therefore you may wish to know that it is now also seeking to rely on section 41 (Information provided in confidence) for the schedule 28 information on the service provider solution. It argues that information contained within schedule 28 was identified by Serco as being especially sensitive and was provided to TfL in the expectation that it would not be disclosed.
===========

I have written back with further arguments for why s.41 should not apply to the information.

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

TfL has awarded Serco a new £50m contract to cover the expansion of the Cycle Hire scheme to East London

http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/...

I'll try to get hold of this contract as well if it's not published on the TfL website.

Sloane Peter, Transport for London

2 Attachments

3 November 2011

 

ICO ref: FS50387116

Our ref: ICO-006-112

 

Dear Mr Skene

 

I am writing to you further to an email from the Information
Commissioner’s Office in which the case officer asked for TfL to provide
to you the previously withheld information where TfL is withdrawing its
reliance on the exemptions. I understand that you have asked for this to
be provided to your What Do They Know account. Therefore please find
attached the following:

a)    Clause 2.7 of Schedule 5 of the London Cycle Hire Scheme contract

b)    Most of the redacted text from Schedule 23 “Gainsharing” – with the
exception of the percentages contained in the first column of tables A, B
and C

 

If there are any problems with these attachments, please let me know and I
will see what I can do.

 

Yours sincerely

Peter Sloane

 

Senior Information Governance Adviser
Information Access & Compliance Team | General Counsel | Transport for
London
5th Floor, Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 4912 auto 64912
F: 020 7126 3185
E: [email address]

 

TfL has recently adopted an ‘information security classification scheme’
to help protect its information assets. If you work for TfL or one of its
subsidiaries and want to find out how this affects you, see the new
[1]Quick Guide or visit [2]Source for more information.

 

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. http://source.tfl/pdfs/IA_QG1_Informatio...
2. http://source.tfl/OurCompany/Governance/...

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

The latest release has included one useful nugget of information:

-----
"a) - The redacted text from Schedule 5 relating to the Service Level Agreements: 4a) clause 2.7 4b) Annex A "Performance Indicator Table")

2.7 The value of the Service Failure Deductions shall be capped each Month at an amount equivalent to twenty percent (20%) of the Monthly Operational Charges for that Month (the 'Service Failure Deduction Cap')."
-----

The unredacted Schedule 5 (see above, 14 April 2011) shows what Serco needs to achieve to avoid being penalised for failing to meet service levels. Eg, for the "top 100 priority" docks, if overall they're full during rush hours for more than an average 10 mins each (or empty depending on tidal flow), then the fine is up to £2 per minute, which will probably rack up fairly quickly each day. There are lots of other penalty points listed, and they're £1 per point.

The new revelation is that there is a financial cap - if Serco are persistently breaching these SLAs, they will still get 80% of the money each month.

The only alternatives offered in the contract for very poor SLA performance is for TfL to step in and run the operations side themselves (or get someone else to do it).

In other news, the ICO updated me on my original request for the "trigger amount" for the Guarantee (Schedule 17):

-----
"... When you submitted your complaint you explained that the version of schedule 17 which you had been provided with in response to part 3 of your request did not include any information regarding the trigger amount and you asked the Commissioner to consider whether an objective reading of your request would have covered the trigger amount even if this information was held elsewhere, for instance in the separately executed deed of guarantee referred to in paragraph 77 of the main contract.

Transport for London has now come back to me on this point and confirmed that it does not hold any information regarding the trigger amount either in the contract or anywhere else. It explained that this was because the trigger amount was never agreed and therefore the information is not held."
-----

It's possible that the Guarantee would be triggered by some other method, so I'll probably make a separate FOI request for it at some point.

The ICO have also indicated that they are in the process of drafting the decision notice and hope to be able to issue it in the next few weeks.

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

The ICO have emailed me today to tell me they issued their decision notice on 5 December, and have upheld all my complaints.

The DN should be on the ICO website in a week or so, however here is the summary:

=================

1. The complainant made a freedom of information request to Transport for London for information contained within its contract with the service provider firm Serco for the London Cycle Hire Scheme. Transport for London disclosed some of the information but withheld other information under the exemptions in sections 43(1) (Trade secrets), 43(2) (Commercial interests) and 41 (Information provided in confidence). The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and found that none of the exemptions are engaged and the information should be made available to the complainant.

2. The Commissioner’s decision is that Transport for London has breached section 1 of the Act by failing to disclose information requested by the complainant.

3. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.

- Transport for London shall disclose to the complainant the information in parts 5, 6 and 8 of his request of 16 December 2010.

4. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this Decision Notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court (or the Court of Session in Scotland) pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

================

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

TfL has decided to appeal the ICO's decision that the information should be released. The First-tier Tribunal reference number is EA/2012/0002

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

The BBC are today reporting online, and on the TV news, calls for greater transparency surrounding Transport for London's sponsorship schemes.

John Biggs, Labour Assembly Member was interviewed for the TV news and complained about elements of the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme being kept secret.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lon...

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

According to the latest Tribunal case list (29/02/2012), Serco Ltd have been named as a Joined Respondent to the case (possibly as they're the main party objecting to the ICO decision?)

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/trib...

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

According to the latest Tribunal case list (14/03/2012), a 3 day oral hearing has been scheduled for 5, 6 & 9 July 2012.

Sloane Peter, Transport for London

4 Attachments

14 April 2011

 

Our ref:           IRV-110-1011

                        ICO-006-1112

 

Dear Mr Skene

 

I am contacting you further to TfL’s withdrawal of its appeal to the
First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). In view of the withdrawal of
this appeal, please find attached the previously withheld information
concerning the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme Contract.

 

I hope that you will find this information acceptable. The information
attached relates to the following outstanding parts of your request:

 

·         Schedule 5 (concerning Service Level Agreements) –copy attached

·         Financial Model from Schedule 7 Annex A

·         Schedule 23 Gainsharing –copy attached

·         Headings from Schedule 28 – Service Provider Solution

 

It may be of interest of you to know that the information is also being
made available via the TfL website.

 

With regard to your query concerning Schedule 28 (the Service Provider
Solution), please find attached a list of all Annexes forming part of the
Solution – as you will be able to see, there was a large quantity of
documents that formed part of the Solution. However, if you do not feel
that this adequately answers your query, please let me know and we will
revisit this part of your request as a matter of urgency.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Peter Sloane | Senior Information Governance Adviser (Enforcement and
Complaints)

Information Governance | General Counsel | Transport for London

Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL

T: 020 7126 4912 | E: [1][email address]

 

TfL has recently adopted an ‘information security classification scheme’
to help protect its information assets. If you work for TfL or one of its
subsidiaries and want to find out how this affects you, see the new
[2]Quick Guide or visit [3]Source for more information.

 

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://source.tfl/pdfs/IA_QG1_Informatio...
3. http://source.tfl/OurCompany/Governance/...

Dear Mr Sloane

Many thanks for providing me with the information. I can confirm that this acceptably completes my request.

I'd be very grateful if you could let me know the URL for the published version? I was only able to find the redacted versions here http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartner...

Yours sincerely,

Alex Skene

Sloane Peter, Transport for London

Dear Mr Skene,

Thank you for letting me know and thank you for your query, which I have raised with the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme team. Unfortunately the person most likely to be able to answer is unavailable until next week, but I will be in touch as soon as I have further information.

Yours sincerely

Peter Sloane | Senior Information Governance Adviser (Enforcement and Complaints)
Information Governance | General Counsel | Transport for London
Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL
T: 020 7126 4912 | E: [email address]

TfL has recently adopted an ‘information security classification scheme’ to help protect its information assets. If you work for TfL or one of its subsidiaries and want to find out how this affects you, see the new Quick Guide or visit Source for more information.

show quoted sections

M Deutsch left an annotation ()

Alex - I think you deserve some sort of a medal (or perhaps a gold-plated Cycle Hire scheme keyfob) for your dogged determinism on this request!

Mr Manning left an annotation ()

Dear Alex, well done - terrific effort on this.
Did TfL ever publish the Schedule 28 content (beyond the Module titles)? If so, please can you direct me to these documents?
thank you very much.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org