Dear Mr Brace

RSN18561

Thank you for your email to Merseytravel. Your request is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and will be answered within twenty working days.

If you have any queries about this request do not hesitate to contact me. Please quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Henderson

Senior Information Management Officer | Merseytravel | Mann Island, PO Box 1976, Liverpool, L69 3HN
Office: 0151 330 1679 | Email: [Merseytravel request email]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Brace

RSN18561

Thank you for your recent request for information.

Merseytravel note that you have stated that your request has been made under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). Without an individual assessment of each invoice and the associated supporting documents, Merseytravel is not able to determine that the requested invoices themselves would constitute 'environmental information' as defined by the EIRs.

It is acknowledged that the ICO's website (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui...) states that 'financial information would be classed as environmental information if it related to the costs of redeveloping land and building a new leisure complex'. From the broad cost code categories attributed to each invoice, the overall purpose of the invoice (and therefore whether or not it relates to an environmental measure, so example) is impossible to establish.

We believe the likelihood is that the majority, if not the entirety, of the requested invoices and associated supporting documents would not be classed as environmental information, and must therefore progress on the assumption that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is the appropriate regime under which to consider your enquiry.

As defined by Section 12 of the Act, the cost limit for responding to a request under the Act for a local government body is set at £450, which is calculated at a rate of £25 per hour (totalling the equivalent of 18 hours' work). When considering the cost of responding, Merseytravel is able to take into account the time spent

a) determining whether the information is held;
b) locating the information;
c) retrieving the original record, and
d) extracting the requested data from the original record.

Merseytravel's Finance department estimate that it would take a minimum of 5 minutes to locate and retrieve each invoice and the associated documents from our system. This estimate would be reduced if the individual invoice number was known, but as it is not searches would have to be made on the invoice date. As it is a regular occurrence for suppliers to submit numerous separate invoices on the same day, a manual check would need to be carried out to find the correct document(s).

For the 132 requested invoices, this exercise would take a total of 660 minutes (5 x 132), or 11 hours, which falls within the appropriate cost limit permitted by Section 12.

This does not, however, constitute the entirety of the work needed to fulfil your request; Section 12 does not allow a public body to consider the time spent considering possible exemptions or redacting documents. From our experience, which you will appreciate given your history of similar requests, invoices are highly likely to include both personal data of third parties (Section 40(2)) and commercially sensitive information (Section 43), both of which are potentially exempt under the Act. It is also a distinct possibility that some of the details contained within the documents may have been provided in confidence (Section 41) or attract legal professional privilege (Section 42). These considerations therefore add to the overall burden placed on Merseytravel to respond.

When dealing with requests, Merseytravel is required to act in accordance with the Cabinet Office's Freedom of Information Code of Practice, issued under Section 45 of the Act. Part 3 of the Code addresses the need to consult with third parties when

. when requests for information relate to persons or bodies who are not the applicant and/or the public authority; or
. when disclosure of information is likely to affect the interests of persons or bodies who are not the applicant or the authority.

Both of these conditions are met in the case of your request, and Merseytravel would need to consult with each of the service providers who submitted the invoices to determine the sensitive of the information contained therein.

There are a total of 79 separate organisations (the data includes transactions under the headings of both Wirral Borough Council and Wirral MBC, which are the same entity). It is estimated that it would take a minimum of ten minutes to consult which each party, with some likely to take considerably longer due to the complexity of the information in question.

The consultation exercise would therefore take at least 790 minutes (10 x 79), or 13 hours 10 minutes to complete.

The Code goes on to state that

There may be occasions where information being considered by a public authority relates to a large number of third parties. If a public authority intends to release information that relates to a large number of third parties it may be helpful to contact a representative organisation who can express views on these parties' behalf rather than contacting each third party individually. Alternatively, if no representative organisation exists, public authorities can also consider only notifying or consulting a representative sample of third parties regarding the disclosure of information, but these will be case by case judgements for the relevant public authority. [3.6]

No representative organisation exists for the parties concerned, and completing a representative sampling exercise is not deemed appropriate given the wide range of businesses and organisations captured by the request. In order to be truly representative, any sampling exercise would need to be so broad that it would not save any notable amount of time.

Even in the extremely unlikely event that the consultation does not identify any commercially sensitive information, the invoices will undoubtedly contain the personal information of junior officers. This information would be exempt under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as disclosure would breach the First Principle of the General Data Protection Regulation (Article 5(1)(a)).

This personal information would therefore need to be redacted and the documents suitably quality checked and scanned. It is estimated that this would take a minimum of 5 minutes per invoice.

The total estimated redaction time would be 660 minutes (5 x 132), or 11 hours.

Based on the factors outlined above, the cumulative time to respond to you enquiry would be:

Invoice Retrieval 660 minutes
Consultation 790 minutes
Redaction 660 minutes

Total Time 2,110 minutes, or 35 hours 10 minutes

The ICO has issued guidance on requests which would impose a grossly oppressive burden but are not covered by the Section 12 cost limits at the following link: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio.... This states that an authority 'may apply section 14(1) where it can make a case that the amount of time required to review and prepare the information for disclosure would impose a grossly oppressive burden on the organisation'.

The conditions set out by the ICO for Section 14(1) to apply are

. The requester has asked for a substantial volume of information AND
. The authority has real concerns about potentially exempt information, which it will be able to substantiate if asked to do so by the ICO AND
. Any potentially exempt information cannot easily be isolated because it is scattered throughout the requested material.

Merseytravel believe that all three of these conditions are met; you have requested a substantial amount of information, and given our past experience of handling requests for invoices we have genuine concerns that the details contained within and throughout the documents will potentially be exempt.

It is Merseytravel's opinion that there is a lack of any wider substantial public interest in the invoices themselves, which could justify this burden. There is no clear theme to the invoices requested, aside from their appearance in Merseytravel's published expenditure over £500 data, nor is there any known controversy or speculation in relation to the transactions. The need for transparency is, in our view, addressed adequately in the already published.

For the reasons outlined above, your request is refused under Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act due to the excessive burden that a response would entail.

In accordance with Section 16 of the Act, to provide you with relevant advice and assistance, Merseytravel can recommend reducing the scope of your enquiry by around 50%. We would be happy to consider any revised request under the Act.

Andrew Henderson

Senior Information Management Officer | Merseytravel | Mann Island, PO Box 1976, Liverpool, L69 3HN
Office: 0151 330 1679 | Email: [email address]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Brace

Your request for an internal review has been passed to Mrs Julie Watling to be carried out.

Regards,

Andrew Henderson

Senior Information Management Officer | Merseytravel | Mann Island, PO Box 1976, Liverpool, L69 3HN
Office: 0151 330 1679 | Email: [email address]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

show quoted sections

Mr Brace

I was hoping to respond to your request for an Internal Review in respect of the above today. Unfortunately due to workload I will not get to it. I will respond to your request over the next few days.

I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Kind regards

Julie Watling

Legal, Democratic Services & Procurement Manager | Merseytravel | Mann Island, PO Box 1976, Liverpool, L69 3HN
Office: 0151 330 1703 | [mobile number] | Email: [email address]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Brace

I refer to your request for an internal review in respect of the above
matter.

Your FOI request was made specifically to the Merseytravel FOI address and
not the separate LCRCA FOI address.  It was not therefore made to two
statutory bodies and cannot therefore be treated as two separate
requests.   Merseytravel, as Executive Body for the LCRCA, provide
corporate services and in particular financial services to the LCRCA. 
Consequently Merseytravel holds the financial information for our own
administrative purposes as well as on behalf of the LCRCA.  As
Merseytravel holds the information there was no need to transfer the
request to the LCRCA.  For your information approximately only 12 of the
132 invoices requested relate to the LCRCA and not 50/50 as you suggested.

Whilst Section 14 is not subject to a public interest test the fact that
Merseytravel (and indeed the LCRCA) publish its expenditure over £500
shows a clear intention by Merseytravel to keep the public updated on what
it is expending its money on in any event.  With regard to your motive
under the Dransfield test as your original request (as in previous years)
was for the purpose of raising issues on the published accounts under the
Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, and when this was refused you
engaged in lengthy correspondence with ourselves and the ICO (despite the
Commissioner having no purview in this area), rather than simply make an
FOI request back in the summer as was suggested.  It has therefore been
unclear whether your motivation was purely journalistic and in pursuit of
transparency, or if it was a point-scoring exercise against the
organisation.  In my view the purpose and value of the requested
information does not therefore justify the distress, disruption and
irritation incurred by Merseytravel as a result of this request.  You have
requested a substantial amount of information and Merseytravel does have
real concerns about the exempt information scattered within such
documentation.

You are obviously aware of the burdensome effect your request has on
Merseytravel.  I would therefore concur with the view of the Senior
Information Management Officer that the Dransfield test is met and Section
14(1) can be applied as the amount of time required to review and prepare
the information for disclosure would impose a grossly oppressive burden on
Merseytravel. 

As stated in our previous email we would be happy to consider a more
targeted approach to invoices requested rather than a random large
selection of the same.

If you are not content with the result of your internal review, you also
have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner, whose address
is

                The Information Commissioner’s Office,

                Wycliffe House,

                Water Lane,

                Wilmslow,

                Cheshire SK9 5AF

                [1]www.ico.gov.uk

Kind regards

Julie Watling

Legal, Democratic Services &
Procurement Manager | Merseytravel |
Mann Island, PO Box 1976, Liverpool,
L69 3HN

Office: 0151 330 1703 | [mobile number] | Email:
[2][email address]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Brace

RSN18943

Thank you for your email to Merseytravel. Your request is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and will be answered within twenty working days.

If you have any queries about this request do not hesitate to contact me. Please quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Henderson

Senior Information Management Officer | Merseytravel | Mann Island, PO Box 1976, Liverpool, L69 3HN
Office: 0151 330 1679 | Email: [Merseytravel request email]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Brace

RSN18943

Thank you for your request of 30th April.

In your request you identified a number of invoices that you believed met the definition of 'environmental information' and therefore should be considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004; having reviewed the contents of these invoices, Merseytravel agree that a majority could be viewed as meeting this definition, with the exception of Invoice 73 (Avon Buses). In addition, Invoices 15 and 137 (DLA Piper - Rolling Stock Programme), which you did not identify as potentially environmental information have been considered as part of this request.

The disclosure of Invoice 73 is being considered alongside the remaining documents as a separate request under the Freedom of Information Act (our ref. RSN18950), a response to which will be provided in due course.

As with your recent request to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (ref. RSN18785), and your previous similar requests for invoices, some aspects of the documents are exempt. The applicable exceptions for each invoice are listed in the attached spreadsheet.

Personal information of junior public sector officers and private sector employees is exempt under Regulation 12(3) of the information requested includes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject, the personal data shall not be disclosed otherwise than in accordance with Regulation 13, thereby breaching the General Data Protection Regulation and/or the Data Protection Act 2018.

Merseytravel believe that there would be no expectation that their information would be disclosed to a third party, and therefore does not regard disclosure as constituting the 'fair and lawful' processing of personal data. As a result, disclosure would breach the First Principle of the General Data Protection Regulation (Article 5(1)(a)). We are also of the opinion that disclosure of the information would not provide any greater understanding of the subject matter.

As with all exceptions under the EIRs, Regulation 12(3) is subject to a public interest test. In the case of personal data, however, there must be a significant argument for the disclose of the identifiable information that outweighs the rights and freedoms of the individuals themselves. Merseytravel is not aware of any such argument. The public interest is, in our view, sufficiently satisfied by the inclusion of the names of Merseytravel officers at Head of Service level and above. The personal information in question has therefore been redacted in accordance with Regulation 12(3).

Merseytravel views some details of the invoices as potentially commercially sensitive, and must give consideration to Regulation 12(5)(e). As with all exceptions under EIR, Regulation 12(5)(e) is a qualified, prejudice-based exemption, and is therefore subject to a public interest test. The Information Commissioner's Office's guidance on Regulation 12(5)(e) (which mirrors that of Section 43 of FOI), can be viewed on their website at this link.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui...

The public interest argument for disclosure is that it allows a greater degree of scrutiny over how public money is spent in the delivery of Merseytravel's work, while contributing to transparency over how decisions have been reached. It is important that public authorities allow their decisions to be scrutinised by the public to ensure that funds are managed appropriately.

The public interest factors to withhold the information relate to the prejudicial impact that the disclosure would have on the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority itself). It would not, for example, be in the public interest to disclose information about a particular commercial body if that information was not common knowledge and would be likely to be used by competitors in a particular market to gain a competitive advantage. Disclosure under the Act is viewed as to the world at large, not simply to the individual requester, and consideration must therefore be given to how it may be used by any party.

DLA Piper

In the Combined Authority's 1st December 2017 response to one of your earlier requests (ref. RSN16586), in relation to invoices submitted for DLA Piper's work on the Rolling Stock replacement project, it was stated that

[bank] details are disclosed to [DLA's] clients with whom [they] have a relationship based on trust and confidence. [DLA] do not publicise our bank account details to the public at large. To do so may expose DLA Piper to risk of theft or fraud.

The hourly rates are unique to the agreement between DLA and Merseytravel, and disclosure would place DLA at a serious disadvantage in relation to the negotiation of commercially acceptable fee levels with other clients, i.e. if it could be seen that Merseytravel received a service for a particular price, a prospective customer is unlikely to accept paying DLA any more, while a competitor would be able to undercut the rate and damage DLA's future business. DLA state that this prejudice was likely to occur.

These concern regarding the hourly rates remain relevant here for invoices 53, 104, 108, 124, 125 & 137. Those expressed in relation to the bank details are relevant for all requested invoices.

Marine Metallurgical Consultants Ltd

Although Invoice 20 contains the hourly rates and description of works carried out by Marine Metallurgical Consultants Ltd, the company expressed no concerns regarding the disclosure of this information.

Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd.

Merseytravel consulted with Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Ltd. (MEL) in relation to any concerns they held in relation to the disclosure of Invoice 26. We were advised that the figures were viewed by MEL as commercially sensitive, and in their opinion should be withheld. Merseytravel has taken this under consideration, but, as with RSN15775 (https://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/about-us...), we realise that given the impact of the industrial action on the Merseyrail network, there is a public interest in knowing how the action was managed.

There is a limited to this, however, and we agree with MEL that disclosure of the breakdown of labour and staff costs would have an undue detrimental impact on their commercial activities. The public interest is sufficiently served by the disclosure of the higher-level costs.

Swift Despatch

Merseytravel's contract with Swift Despatch contains negotiated rates for each deployment, which are itemised in Invoices 6 & 7. Disclosure of these rates would prejudice both Swift's and Merseytravel's ability to negotiate with other parties at the end of the current contract, while not contributing in any meaningful way to a worthy public debate. The inclusion of the instances Swift have been used and the overall cost, without the price per use and the fuel surcharge, gives an indication of the value for money without unduly exposing the specific sensitive details.

Veale Wasborough Vizards

In order to reduce the burden of responding to your request, and to avoid any additional costs, Merseytravel did not directly consult with Veale Wasborough Vizards (VWV) for their views on the potential disclosure of the information contained within invoices 14, 30 and 37. We did, however, seek the guidance of Merseytravel's Commercial Property Solicitor, who advised that the hourly rates were negotiated directly with Merseytravel, and any disclosure would damage VWV's bargaining position with other parties for any future works.

For the reasons outlined above, the invoices in question are provided with partial redactions in accordance with Regulation 12(5)(e). The public interest is sufficiently met by the overall costs to Merseytravel and the itemisation of the services carried out on our behalf.

I trust that the information supplied is of interest to you.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review, which should be addressed to:
Mrs Julie Watling
Legal, Democratic Services & Procurement Manager
Merseytravel
PO Box 1976
Liverpool
L69 3HN
[email address]

If you are not content with the result of your internal review, you also have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner, whose address is
The Information Commissioner's Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF
www.ico.gov.uk

Andy Henderson

Senior Information Management Officer | Merseytravel | Mann Island, PO Box 1976, Liverpool, L69 3HN
Office: 0151 330 1679 | Email: [Merseytravel request email]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

The information supplied continues to be protected by copyright. You are free to use it for your own purposes, including for private study and non-commercial research and for any other purpose authorised by an exception in current copyright law. Documents (except photographs) can also be used in the UK without requiring permission for the purposes of news reporting. Any other reuse, for example, commercial publication would require the permission of the copyright holder.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Brace

Thank you for your email.

Unfortunately, the copies of the invoices in question that have been retained on our accounting system are low resolution and black and white. We therefore do no hold any clearer versions.

Page 62 appear legible, so I assume you have no queries about its contents. I can confirm the following in relation to the other pages:

- p.63 under 'Services' it states ' alojamiento y desayuno', which is 'accommodation and breakfast' in Spanish, 'telefono' (telephone) and 'Lobby Bar Bebida' for meal expenses.
- p.64 reads:

To provide parking for 1[?] night(s) at
Multi-Storey 13
on 16/05/17
Booking Subject to Standard VAT 62.49
Card Voucher[?] Subject to Standard VAT 0.00
Card Surcharge subject to standard VAT 0.17
Booking exempt from VAT 0.00

Net Total 62.56
Vat @ 20.00% 12.53

Gross Total 75.19

- p.65 contains no redactions and is legible, though written in German. ' Übernachtung' ('overnight stay'), 'Gast taxe' ('Guest Tax') and 'Barzuhlung' ('Cash Payment')

I trust that this information is of interest to you.

Regards,

Andy Henderson

Senior Information Management Officer | Merseytravel | Mann Island, PO Box 1976, Liverpool, L69 3HN
Office: 0151 330 1679 | Email: [Merseytravel request email]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

The information supplied continues to be protected by copyright. You are free to use it for your own purposes, including for private study and non-commercial research and for any other purpose authorised by an exception in current copyright law. Documents (except photographs) can also be used in the UK without requiring permission for the purposes of news reporting.  Any other reuse, for example, commercial publication would require the permission of the copyright holder.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Brace

RSN18943

Thank you for your recent request, which has been processed in accordance
with the Freedom of Information Act. This response addresses those
invoices not included in your enquiry under the Environmental Information
Regulations (ref. RSN18943).

We have unfortunately been unable to locate a copy of invoice 60 for Try &
Lilly Ltd.

As with your recent EIR request to Merseytravel (RSN18943), your FOI
request to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (ref. RSN18785),
and your previous similar requests for invoices, some aspects of the
documents are exempt. The applicable exemptions for each invoice are
listed in the attached spreadsheet.

Personal information of junior public sector officers and private sector
employees is exempt under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 as disclosure would allow the possibility of the identification of a
living individual(s), thereby breaching the General Data Protection
Regulation and/or the Data Protection Act 2018.

I believe that there would be no expectation that their information would
be disclosed to a third party, and therefore I do not regard disclosure as
constituting the ‘fair and lawful’ processing of personal data. As a
result, disclosure would breach the First Principle of the General Data
Protection Regulation (Article 5(1)(a)).

I am also of the opinion that the information would not provide any
greater understanding of the subject matter, and there is therefore no
overriding legitimate interest in its disclosure. The personal information
is question has therefore been redacted in accordance with Section 40(2)
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

In the Combined Authority’s 1st December 2017 response to one of your
earlier requests (ref. RSN16586), in relation to invoices submitted for
DLA Piper’s work on the Rolling Stock replacement project, it was stated
that

[bank] details are disclosed to [DLA’s] clients with whom [they] have a
relationship based on trust and confidence.  [DLA] do not publicise our
bank account details to the public at large.  To do so may expose DLA
Piper to risk of theft or fraud.

These views are relevant in relation to the bank details are relevant for
all requested invoices that contain this information.

The hourly rates are unique to the agreement between DLA and Merseytravel,
and disclosure would place DLA at a serious disadvantage in relation to
the negotiation of commercially acceptable fee levels with other clients,
i.e. if it could be seen that Merseytravel received a service for a
particular price, a prospective customer is unlikely to accept paying DLA
any more, while a competitor would be able to undercut the rate and damage
DLA’s future business. DLA state that this prejudice was likely to occur.

These concerns regarding the hourly rates remain relevant here,
specifically for the work carried out by DLA in relation to the Merseyrail
Concession Agreement, detailed in invoice 88, but also in relation to the
unit prices, hourly rates and, in the case of Critiqom, the types of
operations, detailed on the other invoices.

These details are not publically available, and are provided to
Merseytravel by suppliers (often at a negotiated discounted rate) during
the course of official business. Disclosing this information reveals a
great deal about how the businesses operate, information which would be of
interest both to competitors in order to undercut when quoting for future
works and to prospective new customers, who would not wish to pay more
than Merseytravel for comparable services. The resultant detriment would
not address any significant wider public interest, and would therefore, in
Merseytravel’s view, be unwarranted.

For the reasons outlined above, the requested invoices are provided with
partial redactions.

I trust that the information supplied is of interest to you.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the
right to ask for an internal review, which should be addressed to:

                Mrs Julie Watling

                Legal, Democratic Services & Procurement Manager

                Merseytravel

                PO Box 1976

                Liverpool

                L69 3HN

                [1][email address]

If you are not content with the result of your internal review, you also
have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner, whose address
is

                The Information Commissioner’s Office,

                Wycliffe House,

                Water Lane,

                Wilmslow,

                Cheshire SK9 5AF

                [2]www.ico.gov.uk

Andy Henderson

Senior Information
Management Officer |
Merseytravel | Mann
Island, PO Box 1976,
Liverpool, L69 3HN

Office: 0151 330 1679 |
Email:
[3][Merseytravel request email]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

The information supplied continues to be protected by copyright. You are
free to use it for your own purposes, including for private study and
non-commercial research and for any other purpose authorised by an
exception in current copyright law. Documents (except photographs) can
also be used in the UK without requiring permission for the purposes of
news reporting.  Any other reuse, for example, commercial publication
would require the permission of the copyright holder.

show quoted sections