Damage by Third Parties to Highways Claim Costs & Recoveries
Dear Birmingham City Council,
1. Damage to the highways claims please provide since Kier commenced managing the contract 01/04/2020*:
a. closed claims:
i. Kier's reference
ii. Date of incident
iii. Value
iv. Recovered amount
v. Date of recovery (recovery month)
b. Open claims
i. Kier's reference
ii. the incident date
iii. The value of each claim
2. Damage to the highways claims please provide from 01/01/2019 to 31/03/2020, a period during which Amey was the contractor:
a. Closed claims:
i. Amey's reference
ii. Date of incident
iii. Value
iv. Recovered amount
v. Date of recovery (recovery month)
b. Open claims
i. Amey's reference
ii. the incident date
iii. The value of each claim
All in Excel please - as per the response at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
Yours faithfully,
P. Swift
*https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/news/artic...
**you may wish to exclude the 192 records settled https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/kier-b...
Dear Birmingham City Council,
You have not responded within 20 working days. By when can I expect the information?
Yours faithfully,
Mr P Swift
Information request
Our reference: 46172885
Your reference: [FOI #904590 email]
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear Mr Swift
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Thank you for your request received on 2 October 2022.
I can confirm that the response to your request is currently being
finalised and will be sent to you early next week. I apologise for the
delay in replying.
If you are dissatisfied with our response to your request, you have the
right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be
submitted within 40 working days from the date this authority issued its
initial response. Please outline which part of the response you are not
happy with setting out your reasons. This request should be addressed to:
Corporate Information Governance Team
PO Box 16366
Birmingham
B2 2YY
or email [1][email address]
If you are still dissatisfied with the Council's response after the
internal review you have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner
at:
The Information Commissioner's Office
Website: [2]www.ico.org.uk
Yours sincerely
Jenny Bent
Business Support Coordinator
Digital & Customer Support Services
[email address]
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL DISCLAIMER This email contains proprietary
confidential information some or all of which may be legally privileged
and/or subject to the provisions of privacy legislation. It is intended
solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail; you must not
use, disclose, copy, print or disseminate the information contained within
this e-mail. Please notify the author immediately by replying to this
email. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states these to be the views
of Birmingham City Council. This email has been scanned for all viruses
and all reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure that no viruses
are present. Birmingham City Council cannot accept responsibility for any
loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
Birmingham City Council The information contained within this e-mail (and
any attachment) sent by Birmingham City Council is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient or entity
to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient please
accept our apologies and notify the sender immediately. Unauthorised
access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted and may be
unlawful. Any e-mail including its content may be monitored and used by
Birmingham City Council for reasons of security and for monitoring
internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. E-mail blocking
software may also be used. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the originator and do not necessarily represent those of
Birmingham City Council. We cannot guarantee that this message or any
attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended.
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/foiextract20221104-3368908-11imuz3#
2. file:///tmp/foiextract20221104-3368908-11imuz3#
Information request
Our reference: 46172885
Your reference: [FOI #904590 email]
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear Mr Swift
Thank you for your request for information received on 2 October 2022.
Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying.
Please find attached our response to your request.
Yours sincerely
Jenny Bent
Business Support Coordinator
Digital & Customer Support Services
[email address]
Re Use of Public Sector Information
Where Birmingham City Council is the copyright holder of any information
that may be released, re-use for personal, educational or non-commercial
purposes is permitted without further reference to the City Council. Where
the re-use is for other purposes, such as commercial re-use, the applicant
should notify the City Council in writing to seek approval or agree terms
for re-use
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL DISCLAIMER This email contains proprietary
confidential information some or all of which may be legally privileged
and/or subject to the provisions of privacy legislation. It is intended
solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail; you must not
use, disclose, copy, print or disseminate the information contained within
this e-mail. Please notify the author immediately by replying to this
email. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states these to be the views
of Birmingham City Council. This email has been scanned for all viruses
and all reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure that no viruses
are present. Birmingham City Council cannot accept responsibility for any
loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
Birmingham City Council The information contained within this e-mail (and
any attachment) sent by Birmingham City Council is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient or entity
to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient please
accept our apologies and notify the sender immediately. Unauthorised
access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted and may be
unlawful. Any e-mail including its content may be monitored and used by
Birmingham City Council for reasons of security and for monitoring
internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. E-mail blocking
software may also be used. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the originator and do not necessarily represent those of
Birmingham City Council. We cannot guarantee that this message or any
attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended.
Dear Ms Bent
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews. I am writing to request an internal review of Birmingham City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Damage by Third Parties to Highways Claim Costs & Recoveries'.
Your council has provided contradictory information. Therefore I am perfectly within my rights to explain this and seek an explanation. Indeed, this is only reasonable. You have elected not to do so. Do you understand the contract https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/do-bir... ?
Your council has provided information to another, whilst withholding it from me. The Act is requestor and purpose blind. You have elected to act contrary to this.
Your schedule misrepresents the situation in that most stem from an original request to which you provided information that contradicted my knowledge of the facts ergo, they are not separate requests but attempts to resolve your responses which, it now appears were incorrect. You elected to treat each as though separate.
Your evidence of vexatious is lacking and I refer you to a tribunal finding EA/2018/0088 ' Mr Swift is not Vexatious' - https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/13-12-... . You will note, over the period 2013 to 07/2018 I made 57 requests of an Authority and was associated with 118 more. Yours pale into insignificance
Conversely, your council has demonstrated a poor approach to the FoIA:
After months of obstruction, the ICO saw through Birmingham City Council’s conduct and issued a Decision Notice (DN) requiring them to disclose Kier Highways Ltd’s rate information. We now possess another set of Kier pricing records. However, it is evident the ICO was treated with similar disdain, the scathing DN ( KSoR Signed copy of DN IC-100855-S8J9 ) contains the following remarks:
‘The Commissioner had to clarify a particular point three times with the Council, and it was then necessary to issue an information notice before the Council would furnish him, late, with the withheld information in question.’
‘When the Council did provide the withheld information, the Commissioner was required to spend time reviewing information which fell outside of the request’s scope, it having been created after the date of the request.’
’email chains were not filtered to remove duplicate correspondence, causing the Commissioner to have to read through the same email chains multiple times, as further correspondence was exchanged.'
‘As regards the withheld information that did fall within the request’s scope, despite being asked to, the Council has not cited any grounds under FOIA for considering the information to be exempt, or offered any arguments as to why it should not be disclosed.’
‘The Commissioner’s records show that it was given four opportunities to provide this information, including his final email on the matter, dated 13 July 2022, which drew the Council’s attention to the fact that these arguments remained outstanding. The Council’s response to that email failed to provide the requested arguments and focussed on other points’.
The ICO went further writing:
‘The Commissioner would like to place on record that during his investigation, the Council repeatedly failed to engage properly with the questions put to it and the actions it was asked to take. He also notes with concern that the Council failed to comply with the information notice (which is published on his website) within the specified timescale.’
If you were, in any way, associated with the above matter, I believe you should have excluded yourself from the process.
I understand the FoIA lacks the means by which to find an Authority 'vexatious'
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
Yours faithfully,
Mr P Swift
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Mr P Swift left an annotation ()
to ICO:
Online responded:
'Thank you, we have received your complaint. You will get an automated email from us confirming we have received it in the next 24 hours.
What happens next?
We will contact you within no more than 30 working day to provide you with a case reference number. We'll assign your complaint to a case officer as soon as we can.'
Email responder:
'Thank you for contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office. We confirm that we have received your correspondence. If you have any special requirements that mean you would like us to communicate with you in a specific way, please let us know and we will make adjustments if we can.
If you have asked us for advice - we will respond within 14 days. While you wait, you should regularly check our website (www.ico.org.uk) for relevant guidance, as we are updating this all the time. You should read our Guide to the UK GDPR. If you have raised a question that we have answered on our website, we may respond by sending you a link to it. But will do our best to provide you with the information you need.'