Damage to Street Furniture Claim Costs & Recoveries

Mr P Swift made this Freedom of Information request to Birmingham City Council

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Birmingham City Council should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Birmingham City Council,

With regard to the following incidents/claims

A. 05/07/2020
Birmingham - column, sign pole, sign plate, oil, debris
Fox Hollies Road, Junction of Harvingon Way, Birmingham
Kier ref. GC\044709
Kier Invoice # INV24905

B. 11/08/2020
lighting column replacement
New Street Longbridge
Kier ref. GC\045274
Kier Invoice INV25157

I ask to be provided:

1. The amount Kier stated they claimed
2. The amount Kier stated they recovered
3. The breakdown of the charges; labour, plant and materials as conveyed to you
4. Confirmation (or otherwise) the rates are ‘cost’
5. The uplift applied if any (as profit)
6. The management fee, if any (comprising profit)
7. The amount remitted to you
8. The ‘detailed application submitted by Kier (monthly)
9. Any payment made to Kier

Please ensure the response sets out the method by which Kier makes a profit from the claims (fee or uplift)

Please also provide the detailed applications for payment submitted by Kier on a monthly basis since 01/09/2020; the detail for the costs incurred as well as the detailed cost transaction report for all levels of activity and associated costs, in Excel format

Commercial sensitivity does not apply to these damage rates and I refer you to Appeal No: EA/2019/0119 Decision http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/191219-....

Yours faithfully,

P. Swift

Birmingham City Council

 
 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 21277088
Your reference: [FOI #723859 email]

show quoted sections

Dear Birmingham City Council,

Thank you for the update, however, whilst you advise the Freedom of Information Act 2000 may restrict the release of some or all of the information you have requested, I have specifically worded this to comply with the Act and avoid such issues as commercial sensitivity. The information relates to 'damage rates' and methodology. I refer you to the following and associated links:
http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/birming...

You have previously declined to provide the ‘damage to Crown property’ rates writing (at para 2a 14/01/2021) 'These rates have been confirmed by the First Tier Tribunal (EA/2018/0104) to be commercially sensitive and therefore under section 43 FOIA will not be disclosed for the reasons stated below.'.

The above is incorrect and I refer you to the 'commercial sensitivity' information at: http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/birming...

The appropriate decision is Appeal No: EA/2019/0119 in which the Tribunal recorded, at para 14:

'Mr Carney (Highways England) explained that he had referred to there being DCP rates as the Appellant himself had produced information from Keir, given to him voluntarily, which clearly related to DCP. Mr Carney maintained that this was all he was referring to, including that these could not be commercially sensitive as, self-evidently, Keir did not see the information that way, as they had given it to the Appellant.'

The decision can be found here: http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/191219-...

the information is reasonably sought to understand the process, review this and sums involved (with Kier and the Council) determine contract compliance etc. all 'open Government' objectives.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear Birmingham City Council,

You have written:

We are dealing with your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 and we aim to send a response by 3 March 2021.

I have received no update, no information.

You are in breach fo the Act.

I am seeking an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Birmingham City Council

1 Attachment

 
 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 21277088
Your reference: [FOI #723859 email]

show quoted sections

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

council reponse:
We consider that the qualified exemption set out in Section 43 (Prejudicial to
commercial interests) subsection (2) applies to the information requested.
Therefore, we have decided to withhold the information.

In applying this exemption, we have had to balance the public interest in
withholding the information against the interest in favour of disclosure.
S43 Commercial sensitivity information
Section 43(2) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely
to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (an individual, a company,
the public authority itself or any other legal entity).
“A commercial interest relates to a person’s ability to participate
competitively in a commercial activity. The underlying aim may be to
make a profit however it could also be to cover costs or to simply
remain solvent.”
the disclosure of the rates information would be likely to prejudice Kier’s
commercial interests.
The Prejudice Test
The term “would…prejudice” means that prejudice is more probable than not to
occur (i.e. a more than a 50% chance of the disclosure causing the prejudice,
even though it is not absolutely certain that it would do so).
The Public Interest Test
Section 43(2) is a qualified exemption which means that even where the
exemption is engaged, information can only be withheld where the
public interest in maintaining that exemption outweighs the public
interest in disclosure.
The matters which were considered in applying the public interest test are as
follows:-
Factors in favour of disclosing:
Birmingham City Council acknowledges that there is a general public interest
argument in ensuring transparency in the activities of public authorities,
therefore we always strive to be open and transparent in all our dealings.

Dear Birmingham City Council,

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 to Street Furniture Claim Costs & Recoveries'.

The information is not commercially sensitive and I refer you to previous writing.

Additionally, the rates utilised accompany every claim i.e. they are released. They can be found here:

http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/dcp-cla...

1. If the rates at the above link are NOT the tendered rates, please confirm. This would indicate Kier Highways Ltd is NOT using the rates agreed with your council and in turn, they are utilising their profit-making process.

2. If the rates at the above link ARE the tendered rates, they are not commercially sensitive but released and widely available.

As Kier Highways Ltd are using CECA rates and you have confirmed this is not the case, it appears they are not using a contractually agreed process, that (contrary to your response) they are profiting from claims.

In turn, it appears your response is to hide this conduct, to assist Kier to make contract non-complaint uplifts. This is conduct we have encountered before, 'confessed' to a Judge:

para 36: 'Furthermore, for the purposes of assessing the extent of Kier’s authority within Area 9 (Area 6/8) the court cannot ignore the evidence given on behalf of the claimant by Mr Cairns. In summary, on this issue, his evidence was to the effect that the costs calculated for the purposes of the claim did include uplifts for which he was unable to find authority within the contract.'

http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/200821-...

It appears you are unaware Kier Highways Ltd are utilising their 'Inflating Costs to Make a Profit' lawyers http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/inflati...

The charges to those unfortunate enough to damage council property appear to be Kier's nationally applied costs and not as you have conveyed.

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

Birmingham City Council

 
 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 21277088
Your reference: [FOI #723859 email]

show quoted sections

Dear Birmingham City Council,

I have a simple request:

Are the KSoR rates those agreed with BCC to be used by Kier Highways when billing Third Parties who cause damage to Council property?

The KSoR rates can be found here:
http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/wp-cont...

If the KSoR rates are the same if they are those agreed, then what is the problem with releasing said rates, why would they be commercially sensntive given they accompany every claim, are in the public domain and are based on an available scehdule, CECA?

Of course, a problem then arises because you have stated there is no profit associated and the agreed rates are NOT based upon CECA.

If they are not the same, if appears Kier Highways KLts are, once again, not complying with a highways maintenance contract, it appears they are again adding unauthorised uplifts. Additional concerns would be that your monthly updates have failed to identify this and claims against your road users continue to progress base upon high charges and Kier Highways Ltd seemingly acting outside their Authority.

It also appears that your council is unaware Kier Highways Ltd do not manage claims but place matters with lawyers from the outset giving rise to the potential for increased costs' their fees and interest. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/inflati...

These claims are not at 'cost' as advised.

Where is the transparency you wrote about?

Yours sincerely,

Philip Swift

http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/birming...

Birmingham City Council

 
 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 22401086

show quoted sections

Birmingham City Council

 
 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 21277088
Your reference: [FOI #723859 email]

show quoted sections

Birmingham City Council

1 Attachment

 
 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 22401086

show quoted sections

Dear Birmingham City Council,

Thank you for your rpely.

You state ‘Kier Highways do not retain any recovered costs in relation to claims, and monies recovered are reconciled as part of the monthly application for payment process. '

1. please explain what is meant by this, the process

As the costs charged by Kier are, as you describe, ‘public domain’ records:

2. please explain why you have not addressed my FoIA request, a copy of which appears below.

3. please address the FoIA request (below); provide the information I have sought

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear Birmingham City Council,

With regard to the following incidents/claims

A. 05/07/2020
Birmingham - column, sign pole, sign plate, oil, debris
Fox Hollies Road, Junction of Harvingon Way, Birmingham
Kier ref. GC\044709
Kier Invoice # INV24905

B. 11/08/2020
lighting column replacement
New Street Longbridge
Kier ref. GC\045274
Kier Invoice INV25157

I ask to be provided:

1. The amount Kier stated they claimed
2. The amount Kier stated they recovered
3. The breakdown of the charges; labour, plant and materials as conveyed to you
4. Confirmation (or otherwise) the rates are ‘cost’
5. The uplift applied if any (as profit)
6. The management fee, if any (comprising profit)
7. The amount remitted to you
8. The ‘detailed application submitted by Kier (monthly)
9. Any payment made to Kier

Please ensure the response sets out the method by which Kier makes a profit from the claims (fee or uplift)

Please also provide the detailed applications for payment submitted by Kier on a monthly basis since 01/09/2020; the detail for the costs incurred as well as the detailed cost transaction report for all levels of activity and associated costs, in Excel format

Commercial sensitivity does not apply to these damage rates and I refer you to Appeal No: EA/2019/0119 Decision http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/191219-....

Yours faithfully,

P. Swift

Birmingham City Council

1 Attachment

 
 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 23184149

show quoted sections

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

Response (see above for full response and PIT)

Birmingham City Council considers that the rates being requested are commercially sensitive as they are the tendered rates and that no rates attributed to Kier and within the scope of this request are in the public domain
(through Highways England or otherwise).

All rates associated with Birmingham Highways Interim Services Contract between Kier and Birmingham Highways Limited and those between Birmingham City Council and Birmingham Highways Limited remain
commercially sensitive under section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act. This is because the Council considers that the provision of the information would put
Kier at a commercial disadvantage as the rates being published and made public could be used as part of a future tender for the Birmingham Highways
contract or similar.

‘Damage to Crown Property’ Kier rates are not in the public domain. In reviewing the link you have provided with your request it was determined that it specifically relates to hourly rates charges that are a subsection of the whole charges/rates.

This does not mean that that there is an automatic assumption that it would be released to the public. Any publication of the rates would impact on the Council’s own commercial interests in that it would be difficult to secure the best possible terms for future contracts of this nature if the rates were publicly known to any potential bidders.

As such, this could have a detrimental impact upon the public purse and the Council’s aim to secure value for money for its contract award.
The Council therefore considers that the qualified s43 should be engaged.
S43 Commercial sensitivity information Section 43(2) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (an individual, a company, the public authority itself or any other legal entity).

The Council considered the information consisting of tendered rates relating directly to the commercial interests and financial position of Kier. Furthermore,
it has an impact to the Council’s ability to secure value for money in its contracts and procurement process. This was determined in view of the Commissioner’s guidance on section 43(1) which states:
“A commercial interest relates to a person’s ability to participate competitively in a commercial activity. The underlying aim may be to make a profit however it could also be to cover costs or to simply remain solvent.”
The disclosure of the rates information would be likely to prejudice Kier’s commercial interests. The Council also considered that the ‘ability to participate
in a commercial activity’ would also extend to the Council’s involvement in this and put at risk its
ability to secure competitively tendered rates and as such, would be likely to prejudice the Council’s commercial interests.
The Prejudice Test The term “would likely prejudice” means that prejudice is more probable than
not to occur (i.e. a more than a 50% chance of the disclosure causing the prejudice, even though it is not absolutely certain that it would do so).
The Council has considered the harm that would be caused to Kier (the current provider) and the Council itself by disclosing the requested rates information.
When weighing the factors favouring disclosure against those favouring non disclosure, the Council has concluded that disclosure would hinder the commercial interest of both Kier and also the Council’s future price negotiations.

The Council considers disclosure of rates figures would reveal sensitive information that provides an invaluable insight to the company which members of the public (including other local competitors/highways contractors) could take advantage of in order to negotiate or dispute its own contractual terms and
conditions with the Council thereby prejudicing the competitiveness of the Highways company.

Dear Birmingham City Council,

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 to Street Furniture Claim Costs & Recoveries'.

Your response fails to address all aspects of my request but concentrates upon the release of rates. I await the information that pertains to each aspect of my request. I would appreciate you responding by reference to my numbering.

Regarding the commercial sensitivity of rates, please bear in mind that there is a "strong case for openness and transparency"; for "accountability for the spending of public money", for "promoting competition in procurement via transparency" and for "protecting the public from unsafe products or dubious practices".
A dubious practice would, I believe, include acting contrary to your contract, charging other than in accordance with the prescribed/agreed pricing methodology.

You have stated Kier Highways does not use CECA rates, I have evidenced them doing so. When will you address the contradiction?

I suspect the rates I have disclosed, those at ‘the link I provided with my request’

https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/dcp-cl...

are NOT those you agreed with Kier Highways. In turn, that those unfortunate enough to damage your ‘street furniture’, ‘road side property’ (such as the road surface and barriers) are being charged utilising contract non-compliant rates, a price list substantially higher than those agreed (possibly utilised when billing you directly as opposed to the Third party (driver, fleets, haulier or their insurer).

https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/kier-h...

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

Dear Birmingham City Council,
When undertaking an IR, please address the following:
I am familiar with the term ‘tendered rates’ in that these are commonly stated to be for planned works. My interest is unplanned/emergency works
Please confirm
1. your definition of tendered rates and
2. whether, if tendered rates are for planned works, they are the same for unplanned works and if not
3. why the rates for unplanned works will not be disclosed
‘Damage to Crown Property’ Kier rates are in the public domain. The link I provided is to the rates Kier utilise when charging for ‘DCP’ (damage to Crown property or council property).
https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/dcp-cl...
4. Do you agree that the rates (detailed at the link) are being used when billing third parties for damage caused to your property
I do not know whether the rates detailed up the link ‘specifically relate to hourly rates charges that are a subsection of the whole charges/rates’.
5. What is the relevance of this?
If, as it appears, you are suggesting, the rates at the above link are for a small section of the works undertaken, specifically damage to council property, your arguments that they are commercially sensitive is diluted, I would suggest negated
There is an automatic, logical and reasonable assumption this small section of the rates would be released to the public; they are on every claim
6. Please explain why you appear to believe to the contrary.
It necessarily follows these rates released to the public as Kier Highways volunteers the correspondence and figures on every claim, in respect of which dealing simply with Highways England alone, the contractor states they attend approximately 5400 per annum.
Furthermore the issue of their attendance staff rates have been considered by the Information Commissioner and resulted in release of operative hourly rates in may 2018
https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/aiw-ra...
More recently following an information tribunal hearing in March 2021 Kier ‘people rates’ were released to me; the charges for staff and operatives from 2015 to 2021.
7. How would ‘any’ publication of the rates impact on the commercial interests and
8. how has this now occurred given the rates are published?

For the sake of clarity, I am not seeking the entire schedule of rates which it appears is a much larger price list. I am asking to be provided the rates insofar as they relate to unplanned events. Furthermore, I have asked
‘are the rates that appear at the above link those that were agreed with Kier highways at the commencement of the contract’

9. are the ‘Damage to Crown Property’ Kier rates, in the public domain, at the link I have provided with my request, which you refer to as ‘hourly rates charges that are a subsection of the whole charges/rates’, those you agreed with Kier at the commencement of the contract?

10. If so, why has your council stated CECA rates are not utilised?
the prevarication I have encountered suggests Kier highways are not acting in accordance with the agreement with the council. specifically, I refer you to your statements:
• that agreed rates were being utilised, yet I suspect those currently being presented were formulated after the contract commenced
• CECA rates were NOT being utilised by Kier, yet quite obviously by reference to the rates at the above link Kier are using CECA figures
• Kier would not profit saved by an uplift or management fee - yet the range being utilised are at a premium, include a profit (pre uplift/fee
• there was transparency; when is this going to occur?
It appears that your council entered into an agreement with Kier Highways on the basis that your contractor utilised reasonable rates, agreed with you. However it is not appear Kier highways has complied with the process but has been left to their own devices and applied their national schedule of rates without seemingly agreeing this with yourselves.
You state ‘These rates figures were solely negotiated for a particular purpose in response to the Council’s service delivery request’.
11. please explain your understanding of these rates, those that appear at the above link
You seem to be of the impression that you have ‘negotiated’ the figures. However as explained above these figures are being used nationally by Kier Highways. I suspect you negotiated a set of rates, a price list that is utilised when billing yourselves for this or similar work, but that Kier are applying a different schedule of rates when billing third parties.
12. Is this in fact the process in place
There is no transparency in your response. the rates are clearly available to you. If they are those in the public domain, there is no commercial harm occasioned by you either confirming that these were the contractually agreed prices or stating that they were not.
There is a clear contradiction between your response that CECA are not utilised whereas the correspondence of company invoices clearly states that CECA rates are being used.
Please address the requests and the contradictions

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Birmingham City Council

 
 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 24064681

show quoted sections

Dear Birmingham City Council,

Thank you.
More n the subject can be found here https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/kier-h...

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Birmingham City Council

Dear Mr Swift
 
Further to your email dated 12 and 13 May 2021, we provided you with the
outcome of the internal review on reference number FOI 21277088, if you
are not satisfied with our response please contact the Information
Commissioner's Office.
 
Regards
Corporate Information Governance Team
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 Birmingham City Council,

My review request is in relation to 23184149, your response of 12/05/2021. Please explain your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear Birmingham City Council,

It appears there are double standards at play, a prejudice toward my requests.

I have noted claim information in response to a request here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

I ask the Internal review take this into consideration and provide an explanation.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Birmingham City Council

2 Attachments

  • Attachment

    Email from request 723859 eade64e2 whatdotheyknow.com received on 27 05 2021.txt

    3K Download View as HTML

  • Attachment

    Internal review of Freedom of Information request Damage to Street Furniture Claim Costs Recoveries.txt

    3K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Swift
 
Further to your email below can you please provide a reference number for
the request you are relating to please.
 
Regards
Corporate Information Governance Team
 
Dear Birmingham City Council,

It appears there are double standards at play, a prejudice toward my
requests.

I have noted claim information in response to a request here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

I ask the Internal review take this into consideration and provide an
explanation.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

show quoted sections

Dear Birmingham City Council,

My request is in this thread:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/unha...
the information supplied is in this thread:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear Birmingham City Council,

Dear Birmingham City Council,

My request is in this thread:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/7...
04/02/2021 you wrote:
Information request
Our reference: 21277088
Your reference: [FOI #723859 email]

the information supplied is in this thread:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
19/03/2021 you wrote:
Information request
Our reference: 21724385
Your reference: [FOI #729747 email]

Yours sincerely,

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Birmingham City Council

Dear Mr Swift
 
I am writing further to your email received today:
 
Dear Birmingham City Council,

My request is in this thread:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/7...
04/02/2021 you wrote:
Information request
Our reference: 21277088
Your reference: [FOI #723859 email]

the information supplied is in this thread:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
19/03/2021 you wrote:
Information request
Our reference: 21724385
Your reference: [FOI #729747 email]
 
The request FOI 21277088 you have already had an outcome from the internal
review you requested, if you are still not satisfied please contact The
Information Commissioners Office.
 
You make reference above to FOI 21724385 is submitted to us from another
requestor.
 
Should you wish to submit a new Freedom of Information request please can
you submit via our website or our mailbox:
[1][email address] and not via the reference number FOI
21277088.
 
Regards
Corporate Information Governance Team
 
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/foiextract20210527-30276-g4j98b#

Dear Birmingham City Council

I am aware the request i have directed you to is for another requestor. I have complained of double standards; one approach to another, a different approach to me.:
To another requestor you supplied claim related figures.
To me you withheld the information.

Why?

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Birmingham City Council

 
 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 23184149

show quoted sections

Birmingham City Council

 
 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 22401086

show quoted sections

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

27/05/2021 21277088 to the ICO
further explanation/separation of requests here:
https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/birmin...

Dear Birmingham City Council,
The essence of my request is simple, and your avoidance indicates all is not as you have stated, the contradictions appearing to confirm this:

1. Are the KSoR* (Kier Schedule of Rates) which Kier Highways are charging drivers, fleets, hauliers or their insurers (Third parties) following damage to the road or ‘street furniture’ following incidents (collisions, spills or fires being the common cause):
a. the contractually agreed rates, to which you refer, those you agreed within the contract and
b. the rates you are charged for such works – if no Third-Party culprit is identified

Yours faithfully,
Mr P Swift
*a set of rates in the public domain - https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/dcp-cl...

Dear Birmingham City Council,

You have refused my request yet you have disclosed information in relation to a request at:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

1. Why?

With regard to the two claims I have cited, the claim values, as presented, are as follows, to which legal costs were ‘TBA’:

16/04/2020
Z05B287
Kier ref. GC\43812 INC 7800270
£3387.86 claim

21/12/2020
Z08B974
Kier ref. GC\47247 INC 7601839
£3639.21 claim

The above value do not appear upon the presented spreadsheet which is also located here:
https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/birmin...

Please explain why the claim values are not conveyed in the spreadsheet

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear Birmingham City Council,

Highways PFI - The Court of Appeal decided that pricing data, including business case and financial model, together with profit rates and pricing data was worthy of protection and was therefore exempt from disclosure, as the release of such commercially sensitive information was a breach of the Veolia’s human rights under article 1 of the 1st protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights.

For information to be deemed to be confidential, it must have the following characteristics, namely being:

The confidential information must not be in the public domain

The information fails this test ergo it is not commercially sensitive.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Birmingham City Council

 
 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 23184149

show quoted sections

Birmingham City Council

 
 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 22401086

show quoted sections

Dear Birmingham City Council,

Your response is unclear. To which questions, those you have provided numbers for, are you responding?

You have written in respect of a query, a new request:

A. Are the KSoR rates those agreed with BCC to be used by Kier Highways when billing Third Parties who cause damage to Council property?

The KSoR can be found here https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/dcp-cl...

B. If the KSoR rates are the same if they are those agreed, then what is the problem with releasing said rates, why would they be commercially sensitive given they accompany every claim, are in the public domain and
are based on an available schedule, CECA?

I await the information.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Birmingham City Council

Dear Mr Swift
 
We have provided you with the outcome of the internal review, if you are
not happy with our response please contact the Information Commissioner,
the contact details are:
 

The Information Commissioner

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

Telephone: 01625 545745

Web Address: www.ico.org.uk

Yours sincerely
Corporate Information Governance Team

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

Dear Birmingham City Council,

Your response is unclear. To which questions, those you have provided
numbers for, are you responding?

You have written in respect of a query, a new request:

A. Are the KSoR rates those agreed with BCC to be used by Kier Highways
when billing Third Parties who cause damage to Council property?

The KSoR can be found here
https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/dcp-cl...

B. If the KSoR rates are the same if they are those agreed, then what is
the problem with releasing said rates, why would they be commercially
sensitive given they accompany every claim, are in the public domain and
are based on an available schedule, CECA?

I await the information.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

show quoted sections

Dear Birmingham City Council,

I have asked you to clarify your response, I do not understand to what you are responding and am seeking your assistance in this respect.

thank you

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear Birmingham City Council,

when responding please:

1. identify the request to which you have provided the IR
2. the IR date/time on this thread
3. your reference

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift