Email misfires (public)

Internal admin user made this Freedom of Information request to Internal admin authority
This authority is not subject to FOI law, so is not legally obliged to respond (details).


This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

This request has been withdrawn by the person who made it. There may be an explanation in the correspondence below.

Internal admin user

This request holds email messages - that can be made public - which were accidentally sent to WhatDoTheyKnow, but we display here as part of our commitment to transparency.

Freedom Of Information,

Dear Mr [name removed],

 

Freedom of Information Review Request 2015/18117

 

Thank you for your recent request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA) which was originally received in this office on the 6^th July
2015 (2015/17916), followed by your internal review request dated 27^th
September 2015 (2015/18117).

 

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties
on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at,
Section 1(1) (a), is to confirm or deny whether the information specified
in a request is held. The second duty at, Section1 (1) (b), is to disclose
information that has been confirmed as being held.

 

Original request & response:

 

Freedom of Information Request 2015/17916

 

Thank you for your recent request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 which was received in this office on the 6th July 2015.

 

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties
on public authorities.  Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at,
Section 1(1) (a), is to confirm or deny whether the information specified
in a request is held. The second duty at, Section1 (1) (b), is to disclose
information that has been confirmed as being held.

 

The information that you are seeking is in relation to the following:

 

Q. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 allows for National Security
Determinations (NSD) to be made which allow the period that biometric data
is retained for to be extended. 

 

o Please would you provide me with the number of National Security
Determinations which have been made under the PoFA since the powers
came into force (end of October 2013). Please provide these figures
broken down by the number of NSDs which have been made each month
since the commencement under PoFA - where possible broken down by
whether this is 'Legacy Material', or 'New Material'.

 

o The amount of NSDs, made by your force, where the biometrics
commissioner has ordered destruction of the material (overturned). As
with above, please provide these figures broken down by month. 

 

 

A. The exemption applicable to the information you have requested for this
question can be found at Section 24 – National Security and Section 31 –
Law Enforcement of the Act and this refusal notice is issued under Section
17.

 

Overall Harm for Section 24 and Section 31

 

The threat of terrorism cannot be ignored. It should be recognised that
the international security landscape is increasingly complex and
unpredictable.  The UK faces a sustained threat from violent terrorists
and extremists.  Since 2006 the UK Government have published the threat
level based upon current intelligence and that threat level has remained
at the second highest level ‘severe’, except for two short periods during
August 2006 and June and July 2007, when it was raised to the highest
threat ‘critical’ and July 2009, when it was reduced to ‘substantial’. The
current threat level to the UK is ‘severe’.

 

To disclose the number of National Security Determinations submitted by
each force would undermine individual forces policing capabilities which
consequently would be detrimental to their ability to deal with the
on-going terrorist threat we face. By providing the number of persons
suspected of terrorism related activities by an individual force would
allow comparison between forces across the country and enable terrorists
to build a picture of the level of resourcing and where those resources
are deployed as presumably a force with a large number of suspected
terrorists will have greater resources deployed to assist with counter
terrorism opposed to a force with few. It is felt that the disclosure of
the requested information would prejudice the effectiveness of the
national counter terrorism effort and would allow inferences to be drawn
about force level counter-terrorism activity and identify vulnerability
around the country.

 

In addition police investigations could be compromised as the disclosure
of the information could alert offenders of their 'suspect' status thus
allowing them to alter their behaviour and activities to evade detection.
Any enquiries or investigations carried out by other agencies may also be
compromised and to compromise the investigative process and any evidential
gathering undertaken to combat the terrorist threat we face would affect
the safety of the public at a national level. 

 

Factors favouring disclosure of the information S24

 

The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and to disclose
this information would allow the public to see where money is being spent
and know that forces are doing as much as they can to combat terrorism.

 

Factors favouring non-disclosure of the information S24

 

To disclose this information would render security measures less effective
which would compromise on-going or future operations to protect the
security and infrastructure of the UK.  The risk of harm to the public
would be elevated, if areas of the UK which appear vulnerable were
identified which would also provide the opportunity for terrorist
planning.  On-going or future operations to protect the security and
infrastructure of the UK would be compromised as terrorists could map the
level of counter-terrorist activity across the country by knowing the
number of persons suspected of terrorism within a force area, thus
providing them with an inferred knowledge of individual force capability.

Factors favouring disclosure of the information S31

 

To disclose the number of NSDs made by a force would make members of the
public more aware of the threat of terrorism and allow them to take steps
to protect themselves and families.  Improved public awareness may lead to
more intelligence being submitted to police about possible suspects as
members of the public will be more observant to suspicious activity which
in turn may result in a reduction of crime.

 

Factors favouring non-disclosure of the information S31

 

By applying exemptions to the requested information inhibiting its
disclosure would prevent law enforcement tactics from being compromised
and would retain the Police force’s ability to prevent and detect
terrorist crimes. It is given that the threat of terrorism will increase
as more crimes are committed as a result of terrorists gaining knowledge
about the capabilities of individual forces and therefore the public will
be placed at a greater risk, however, by exempting the information those
with the inclination to commit acts of terrorism will not have knowledge
regarding the vulnerability of specific areas and therefore the increase
of threat will be prevented and a fear of crime will not be realised as
terrorists will not know which areas to target and exploit .

In addition, disclosure of the information would have an adverse impact
upon police resources  as forces that could be perceived as vulnerable may
need to increase their resources to reassure and protect the community.

 

Balance Test

 

The security of the country is of paramount importance. The police will
not divulge any information that would place the safety of an individual
at risk or undermine national security. Whilst there is a public interest
in the transparency of policing, and in this case providing assurance that
the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the
threat posed by terrorist activity, there is a very strong public interest
in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police
investigations and operations in the highly sensitive subject of
terrorism.

 

As much as there is a public interest in knowing that policing activity is
appropriate and balanced in matters of national security this will only be
overridden in exceptional circumstances.  Police force’s capabilities of
combating terrorism are sensitive issues of intelligence value to the
terrorist and therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the
balancing test for disclosing the requested information is not made out.

 

Additionally, Gwent Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any
other information relevant to your request by virtue of the following
exemption:

 

Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;

 

Section 23 is an absolute class-based exemption and therefore there is no
requirement to conduct a harm or public interest test.

 

 

The Freedom of Information Act is a public disclosure regime, not a
private regime. Any information disclosed under the Act is thereafter
deemed to be in the public domain, and therefore freely available to the
general public and will be published on the Gwent Police website.  Please
note: If you are unhappy with the information provided in this disclosure
and require a review, you will need to apply within 20 working days of the
date of this disclosure.

I hope this information is satisfactory to your request however, should
you feel dissatisfied with this response or the way in which your request
was handled, I have attached the Gwent Police FOI Appeals Procedure for
your information.

 

Thank you for your interest in Gwent Police.

 

You requested the following information on internal review:

 

I am now writing to ask for an internal review of the decision and have
set out my arguments for disclosure below.

 

Harm

 

 1. The information has, as you are aware, been requested from a number of
police forces. In providing the response to this request a standard
template response to the public interest test has been provided. This
does not take into account the police force’s individual position or
information that it holds. In essence a blanket has been put on the
class of information that has been requested.
 2.  

2. This blanket approach to the request is undermined by two police forces
that have disclosed that they do not hold any information on the number of
NSDs. By confirming that they do not hold any information the two forces
have weakened the need to not disclose the number of NSDs, which have been
made. The approach of two police forces that confirmed that no information
was held severely weakens the harm argument disclosure:

“would undermine individual forces policing capabilities which
consequently would be detrimental to their ability to deal with the
on-going terrorist threat we face”. The two police forces that have said
no information is held have clearly shown that they do not believe it
would be detrimental to reveal that they have not made any NSDs. Thus they
do not believe that revealing a low number (nil) will encourage terrorists
to relocate to within their boundaries.

 

3. The argument that terrorists or potential terrorists will relocate to
areas where a low amount of NSDs have been made is also redundant due to
the fact that individual forces do not solely conduct national security
operations. National security operations can be conducted by a number of
difference agencies, including the secret services, Counter Terrorism
Command, as well as oversight from the National Counter Terrorism Security
Office. National security is a UK wide operation and a low number of NSDs
within a police force does not indicate that the resources provided to it
are lower than another area.

 

4. It is claimed that revealing the numbers of NSDs could alert suspects
to their potential status. If a suspect has been apprehended and had their
biometric details recorded, they will already be aware that they are on
the

radar of the police force. They will be aware that the authority will know
them. Thus they may already “alter their behaviour and activities to evade
detection”. If the biometric information has been obtained by other means

(i.e. covert operations) the person will not alter their behaviour as they
will be unaware that their biometric data has been retained.

 

5. In addition disclosing the number of NSDs that have been made will
increase trust in the police force’s operation and hold it responsible for
the work that it does.

 

6. Overall the harm that has been afforded to the disclosure of the
requested information has been overstated and would not be likely to
undermine

national security or policing operations.

 

S.24 / S.31 public interest considerations

 

1. The factors that have been considered to be “favouring disclosure” are
general factors, which have not been well considered and do not take into
account all possible circumstances. The following areas are reasoning as

to why the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in
maintaining the exemption.

 

2. Trust in surveillance operations conducted by UK authorities has been
undermined by revelations that mass surveillance has been conducted by UK
bodies. Examples of this include biometric information which has collected
webcam images of individuals using computers

 

(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/fe...
internet-yahoo) and also that information has been collected on every
visible internet user

 

(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom...

gchq-collected-information-from-every-visible-user-on-theinternet-

10517356.html). These instances include the storage of files and personal
information. Police retention policies, While not discussing biometric
data that this request refers to, for personal information, specifically
photographs, has been criticized in the case of MC & Anor, R (on the
application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors [2012]
EWHC 1681 (Admin) (22 June 2012). This shows a questioning of all
retention policies.

 

3. There is a large public interest in the lawful actions of authorities
that are able to keep and access information that is kept for national
security purposes. These extend to the retention of biometric information.
It is crucial to the democratic process that biometric information, even
when

it is held for national security purposes, is held lawfully. As such the
extent and amount of biometric retention that is retained under NSDs are
important to the conduct of public officials. There needs to be confidence
that biometric retention is being kept proportionally and lawfully.

 

4. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that there
needs to be respect for an individual’s private life and article 6
provides a right to a fair trial. If the biometric data is not held in
accordance with protocols then either, or both, of these areas of the ECHR
could be called into question.

 

5. Public understanding of NSDs and their oversight would be increased by
disclosure of the information.

 

6. Confidence that the democratic process of policing and ensuring fair
treatment and justice is occurring would be increased by the disclosure of
the information. In particular where NSDs have been refused/overturned

by the Biometrics Commissioner shows whether police forces are using their
powers correctly. The non-abuse of powers by law enforcement agencies, as
highlighted by the above surveillance examples and others of gross
misconduct, carry a high public interest and disclosure will help to
negate any suspicion of wrong doing or malpractice.

 

7. The oversight of NSDs is, as mentioned, carried out by the Biometrics
Commissioner. The Commissioner, in his annual report from 2014, said that
he is “not persuaded” that the number of NSDs made or reviewed should
remain a secret. At the time the Commissioner did not publish the

number that had been made or reviewed, but said these figures could be
published in the future. At the time of making this report the powers to
make NSDs had not been in force for a long time. However, the picture has

now changed and so with it has the public interest in disclosure. Now that
the potential to make NSDs has been available to police forces for a
greater amount of time the interest that they are being used correctly has
increased.

 

8. The disclosure of the number of NSDs made and those that have been
reviewed also increases scrutiny of the oversight process. At present the
Biometrics Commissioner is not covered by FOIA legislation, meaning this
information is not accessible from the office. And, while it remains
unpublished there is a lack of accountability of the office and its public
function. Disclosure of the figures will ensure that the Biometrics

Commissioner’s office is fulfilling its oversight duties.

 

S.23(5)

 

1. I believe that it is wrong to NCND that any further information is
held.

2. Confirmation that the information I have requested is held has been
given.

3. The request is specific and aimed at two pieces of defined information,
it does not concern whether other information on the area is held.

4. As the ICO said in DN FS50505556: “given the specific wording of this
request, it is illogical for the MPS to adopt a NCND position in relation
to any ‘further information’ simply because the complainant has not
actually requested any further information”.

 

Review decision

 

Gwent Police has considered your review request above and can confirm that
we are going to uphold our original decision not to release the
information you have requested, and our original disclosure stands.

 

The Freedom of Information Act is a public disclosure regime, not a
private regime. Any information disclosed under the Act is thereafter
deemed to be in the public domain, and therefore freely available to the
general public and will be published on the Gwent Police website.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioners office for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House, Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

Thank you for your interest in Gwent Police.

 

 

 

 

Dylan Collins

Swyddog Rhyddid Gwybodaeth / Freedom of Information Officer

Ystafell 195 / Room 195

Heddlu Gwent Police,

Pencadlys yr Heddlu / Police HQ,

Croesyceiliog,

Cwmbrân / Cwmbran

NP44 2XJ

 

Ffôn / Tel: 01633 643014

Mewnol / Internal: 710 2006

E-bost / Email: [1][email address]

 

Oeddech chi’n gwybod bod modd gweld gwybodaeth am Heddlu Gwent drwy
Gynllun Cyhoeddi a Chofnod Datgeliadau Heddlu Gwent? Mae’r ddau ar gael
drwy’r ddolen isod:

 

Did you know you can access information about Gwent Police via the Gwent
Police Publication Scheme and Disclosure Log?  Both are available via the
below link:

 

[2]http://corporate.gwent.police.uk/foi/

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

    

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://corporate.gwent.police.uk/foi/

Seal Julie,

We have a record that you send us some email correspondence recently,
unfortunately due to a major technical outage (which has now been
resolved),

any message you sent to: [1][email address]  has not been retained by our
email system for the period covering Sunday 24^th to Thursday 27^th
October.

 

We would be grateful if you could resend any correspondence you sent to us
for this period.

 

I apologise for any inconvenience that this may cause.

 

Kind regards,

 

Complaints & Information Team   

Town Hall | Barking | IG11 7 LU

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

One borough; one community; London’s growth opportunity

 

E-mail confidentiality notice. This message is intended for the addressees
only. It may be private, confidential and may be covered by legal
professional privilege or other confidentiality requirements. If you are
not one of the intended recipients, please notify the sender immediately
on +44 0 20-8215-3000 and delete the message from all locations in your
computer network. Do not copy this email or use it for any purpose or
disclose its contents to any person:to do so maybe unlawful.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

OGA FOI requests,

2 Attachments

 

Dear [name removed] [name removed],

 

Please find attached the response to your FOI request.

 

Many thanks,

 

Strategy Directorate

 

Oil and Gas Authority is a limited company registered in England and Wales
with registered number 09666504 and VAT registered number 249433979. Our
registered office is at 21 Bloomsbury Street, London, United Kingdom, WC1B
3HF.

For information about how we process data and monitor communications
please see our Data Protection Statement and for terms of use please see
our Terms and Conditions, both available on our website.

 

 

 

From: R [name removed] [[1]mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 19 October 2016 16:41
To: OGA Correspondence
Subject: Fwd: PON14b Notification form

 

Dear OGA,

 

Please can you answer the email sent to Mark below dated 18/10/16

 

Kind regard

[name removed] [name removed]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Quint Mark (Oil and Gas Authority)"
<[2][email address]>
Date: 19 October 2016 at 16:36:26 BST
To: R [name removed] <[3][email address]>
Cc: "Harvey Toni (Oil and Gas Authority)"
<[4][email address]>
Subject: RE: PON14b Notification form

Dear Mr [name removed],

 

The contact details you have used (in your link below) are only for the
purpose of the submission of completed PON14b Applications, and not for
general correspondence or matters that are not urgent.

 

Please can you direct requests for information or correspondence to our
correspondence unit.

You can contact them using email with this address:
[5][email address], and further contact details can
be found at this link: [6]www.ogauthority.co.uk/about-us/contacts/.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Mark Quint

Geoscientist – Oil & Gas Authority
[7]cid:image001.png@01D06BC2.0125DB30
+ Oil & Gas Authority, 4^th Floor,
21 Bloomsbury Street, London, WC1B
3HF

 

Oil and Gas Authority is a limited company registered in England and
Wales with registered number 09666504 and VAT registered number
249433979. Our registered office is at 21 Bloomsbury Street, London,
United Kingdom, WC1B 3HF.

 

For information about how we process data and monitor communications
please see our Data Protection Statement and for terms of use please see
our Terms and Conditions, both available on our website.

 

From: R [name removed] [[8]mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 19 October 2016 14:28
To: Quint Mark (Oil and Gas Authority)
Cc: Harvey Toni (Oil and Gas Authority)
Subject: Re: PON14b Notification form

 

Dear Mark,

 

Please can you acknowledge receipt of my email dated 18/10/16 and
confirm when I am likely to receive a response?

 

Kind Regards

[name removed] [name removed]

 

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

From: R [name removed]
Sent: 18 October 2016 20:02
To: [9][email address]
Subject: Fw: PON14b Notification form

 

 

Dear Mark,

 

I have sent the information request below to Toni, but an 'out of
office' reply suggest that I contact you if it is urgent.

 

Please can you answer the query below and provide the requested
information?

 

Kind Regards

[name removed] [name removed]

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

From: R [name removed]
Sent: 18 October 2016 19:54
To: [10][email address]
Subject: PON14b Notification form

 

Dear Toni,

 

Please can you confirm which companies have issued the OGA with a
completed PON14b form, and for which PEDL blocks.

 

[11]https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/exploratio...

 

Please can you also provide a copy of the completed forms along with A4
maps attached to the PON14B.

 

Kind Regards

[name removed] [name removed]

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
service.
For more information please visit [12]http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit [13]http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[email address]
5. mailto:[email address]
6. http://www.ogauthority.co.uk/about-us/co...
8. mailto:[email address]
9. mailto:[email address]
10. mailto:[email address]
11. https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/exploratio...
12. http://www.symanteccloud.com/
13. http://www.symanteccloud.com/

Daybank, Alex,

Dear Professor Latchman,

 

I am writing to bring to your attention an FOI request UCL has received
from the Guardian newspaper.

 

The applicant is seeking information in four separate areas. Please find
the wording of the request below:

 

•           Has the screening panel, which has been looking this year at
allegations of research misconduct by Prof Latchman, reached a conclusion
on whether or not to proceed to an inquiry? If so, what was the panel's
decision and what were the reasons for that decision?

 

• In a previous FOIA request I submitted to UCL in 2015, the university
refused to release the report or reports of a previous investigation into
Prof Latchman because doing so might influence the work of the
above-mentioned screening panel. Can that report (or reports) now be
released?

 

• Can UCL confirm that Professor Latchman was investigated for potential
research misconduct on another occasion, before the 2015 investigation
which found he had "[1]no case to answer".

 

• I would like to request correspondence between Prof [name removed] Latchman or
his representatives, including legal, and the UCL Data Protection and
Freedom of Information Office over the past six months, i.e. from 15 May
2016 until 14 November 2016.

 

UCL is obliged to provide a response relating to the recorded information
it holds and having considered the information held relevant to the first
aspect of the request and the available exemptions UCL considers that it
will be necessary to state that the Screening Panel has recommended a
formal investigation. In stating this we will reiterate that all
proceedings will be conducted under the presumption of innocence.

 

We will apply the exemption at section 31(2) by virtue of section 31(1)(g)
of the FOI Act to withhold further details of the Panel’s decision and to
once again withhold the earlier screening panel report. This exemption
states that:

 

“(1)Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice—

(g)the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the
purposes specified in subsection (2)”

Those purposes being:

“(b)the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any
conduct which is improper”

 

Please note that this exemption is subject to a public interest test.

 

With regard to third aspect of this request, as you will recall UCL holds
some limited information relating to the fact that you “were questioned in
relation to an investigation into a whistleblowing allegation made in
about 2007 that a figure in a published research paper emanating from your
lab at ICH had been fabricated.” As you may be aware, the FOI Act first
requires a public authority to confirm whether information relevant to a
request is held. As a consequence UCL intends to rely on an exemption to
respond to this part of the request by neither confirming nor denying
whether any information is held on the grounds that revealing that
information is held would in itself be incompatible with the data
protection principles, specifically the first data protection principle
which requires that personal data is processed fairly and lawfully. The
existence of any information will therefore be withheld under section
40(5)(b)(i) of the FOI Act, this exemption deals with personal data.

 

Finally, the only correspondence held between you or your representatives
and myself (besides this email which is beyond the scope of the current
request) relates to the data protection subject access requests that you
have submitted. UCL has concluded that this correspondence is exempt under
section 40(2) of the FOI Act, another part of the exemption for personal
data.

 

The response to this request will be sent shortly.

 

Regards

 

Alex Daybank

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer, Legal Services |
[2]University College London

020 3108 8726 | x58726 | [3][email address]

 

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/new...
2. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/
3. mailto:[email address]

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

The above email from University College London Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer Alex Daybank was received on the 19 December 2016; it had been sent to an unrelated request thread.

The subject matter of the message has been reported in a number of articles including:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/20...
and
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/new...

Due to the public interest in material supporting such articles being openly available, rather than delete it we moved it and made it available on this page.

--

Richard - WhatDoTheyKnow.com volunteer

Information Governance,

5 Attachments

Dear [name removed] Boothman

 

Reference number: EIR/ENV/02/18/15052

 

On 27^th February 2018 Hertfordshire County Council received the following
request for information from you:

 

“Relating to the confirmed statutory inspection of Wood End Lane,
Flamstead on 18th December, 2017. I would like to see the documents
supporting the inspection of this piece of road on that date.

 

I also want to see all the reports of pot holes/vehicle damage on Wood End
Lane, Flamstead reported following this inspection on the 18th December
and details of all insurance claims and their status i.e. have they been
settled/refused.”

 

Your request for information has been considered under the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004.  I can confirm that Hertfordshire County
Council does hold the information you have requested and can respond as
follows:

 

Please see the two attached Street History Reports which cover Wood End
Lane. The following text takes you through the Reports:

Dates of all safety inspections undertaken on the carriageway referred to
above, for the year 1^st December 2017 to 31^st December 2018 to show the
full cyclical statutory and ad hoc inspections and maintenance record.

and

Details of all carriageway defects identified during safety inspections
for the year 1^st December 2017 to 31^st December 2018

Please see the “Condition Survey” section of the attached Site History
Report.  This section details the dates of inspections carried out on the
stretch of highway in question, within the specified time period.  It also
details any defects identified upon inspection.

 

Details of how carriageway safety inspections are undertaken, including
whether walked or driven, the speed of the inspection vehicle and the
number of persons in the vehicle.

Carriageway safety inspections are undertaken from a slow moving vehicle
(a driver and an inspector - two people) driving at an appropriate speed
(with regard to safety, road conditions, and traffic).

Safety inspections on footways with a safety inspection interval of 6
monthly or annually are inspected from a vehicle as a combined carriageway
and footway inspection. However, when inspecting footways, it may be
difficult to obtain the necessary level of accuracy from vehicle based
inspections and walking should be used in these circumstances.

Safety inspections on footways with a safety inspection interval of
monthly or 3 monthly, or footways that are of paving slab construction;
are tree lined; where the distance between the edge of the carriageway and
footway is greater than 2 metres; which are elevated at a height greater
than 1 metre above carriageway level; which are lower than 0.5 metre below
carriageway; and where visibility from a vehicle is impaired by an
obstruction - e.g. parked cars, barriers etc., are walked and recorded as
a separate inspection from the carriageway.

 

The intended frequency of carriageway safety inspections.

Wood End Lane  2U68/10 – Annual Combined. Last inspection 18^th December
2017. Ad hoc inspections are in direct response to public reportage and
involves an inspector verifying the report, making safe or classifying the
defect for future work. It is not a whole carriageway inspection. Last Ad
hoc inspections 16^th January 2018, 11^th January 2018, 15^th December
2017

 

Wood End Lane – 2U68/15  - Annual Combined. Last inspection 18^th December
2017

 

Details of all complaints and/or enquiries relating to the carriageway
received in the year 1^st December 2017 to 31^st December 2018

Please see the “Customer Services“  section of the attached Site History
Report.  This section details complaints, notifications and enquiries
received by the County Council regarding the specified stretch of
highway. 

 

The hierarchy classification.

Wood End Lane (2U68/10  and 2U68/15)  -  L2 Local Access, Road class:
Unclassified Road – U

 

The road/section number.

Wood End Lane – 2U68/10 (Markyate Street Lane To Track At Scratch Wood)

Wood End Lane – 2U68/15 (Track At Scratch Wood To Trowley Bottom)

 

Details of the work orders produced by the fault logging for assessment
and temporary and/or permanent maintenance carried out in the year 1^st
December 2017 to 31^st December 2018

Please see the "Maintenance Report", "Street Works Inspections" and
"Street Works Notices"  attached. Note: The work numbers generated for the
crews may not tally with the fault report numbers given to the public.

 

We are unable to provide the maintenance management report for the dates
as specified due to the way the data was transferred to the Highways
system when it was implemented; please ignore reports which relate to
earlier years.

 

The defect intervention criteria adopted in relation to the identification
of all categories of carriageway potholes.

and

The time period(s) adopted between identification and repair (temporary
and permanent) of all categories of carriageway defects.

The criteria and time periods for the repair of potholes is dependent on
the classification of the highway (whether it is an A, B, C or
unclassified road) and the size of the pothole.

For A roads:-

o Potholes with depth greater than 50 mm (with the exception of potholes
in a marked cycleway where the intervention level will be unchanged
i.e. 40 mm or of unknown depth) and length or width greater than 300mm
(or of unknown width) are repaired within 5 working days with
permanent (hot) repair materials

o Potholes with depth greater than 50 mm (with the exception of potholes
in a marked cycleway where the intervention level will be unchanged
i.e. 40 mm or of unknown depth) and length or width less than 300mm
are repaired within 20 working days with permanent (hot) repair
materials;

o Potholes with depth less than 50mm (with the exception of potholes in
a marked cycleway where the intervention level will be unchanged i.e.
40 mm) and length or width less than 300mm are referred to Highways as
a significant defect to assess, decide and prioritise for permanent
repair.

For B & C roads:-

o Potholes with depth greater than 50mm (with the exception of potholes
in a marked cycleway where the intervention level will be unchanged
i.e. 40 mm or of unknown depth) and length or width greater than 300mm
(or of unknown width) are repaired within 5 working days with
permanent (hot) repair materials

o Potholes with depth greater than 50mm (with the exception of potholes
in a marked cycleway where the intervention level will be unchanged
i.e. 40 mm or of unknown depth) and length or width less than 300mm
are repaired within  20 working days (subject to route aspect - namely
straight, curve or bend - and the position within the road - namely
edge, centre, across road or in wheel tracks - with permanent (hot)
repair materials;

o Potholes with depth less than 50mm (with the exception of potholes in
a marked cycleway where the intervention level will be unchanged i.e.
40 mm) and length or width less than 300mm are referred to Highways as
a significant defect to assess, decide and prioritise for permanent
repair.

For Unclassified roads:-

o Potholes with depth greater than 50mm (with the exception of potholes
in a marked cycleway where the intervention level will be unchanged
i.e. 40 mm or of unknown depth) and length or width greater than 300mm
(or of unknown width) are repaired within 20 working days with
permanent (hot) repair materials;

o Potholes with depth greater than 50mm (with the exception of potholes
in a marked cycleway where the intervention level will be unchanged
i.e. 40 mm or of unknown depth) and length or width less than 300mm
are repaired within 20 working days with permanent (hot) repair
materials;

o Potholes with depth less than 50mm (with the exception of potholes in
a marked cycleway where the intervention level will be unchanged i.e.
40 mm) and length or width less than 300mm are referred to Highways as
a significant defect to assess, decide and prioritise for permanent
repair.

 

 

Whether or not the Authority has formally adopted all or part of the
standards contained within the national code of practice for highways
maintenance management.

Hertfordshire is aware of the code of practice 'Well Maintained
Highways'.  Like most UK highway authorities, some of our standards and
procedures are taken from or are based upon the various codes of practice
whilst others are locally developed to better suit our needs and
priorities. It is therefore not possible to give a general answer to this
question except to say that we have not formally adopted it in its
entirety.

 

Please note, names and third party personal data have been redacted from
the attached documents in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998, as
the County Council does not consider there is a public interest in
releasing this information.

 

Hertfordshire County Council does not hold cost information for individual
highway repairs carried out with effect from 1st October 2012. This is
because we no longer require an itemised costing for each repair from our
contractor.

Our contractor provides a monthly account showing their expenditure on all
repairs carried out across the highway network. We cannot disaggregate
this information to provide individual costs.

 

 

For more information on the management and maintenance of Hertfordshire’s
road network, please visit:

 

[1]http://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services...

 

[2]http://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services...

 

 

Details of all insurance claims and their status i.e. have they been
settled/refused for Wood End Lane between 18^th December 2017 and 27^th
February 2018

The Insurance department have received 4 claims for this road relating to
incidents. All 4 have been declined, however two have appealed and so the
current status is 2 re-opened.

 

 

If you have any questions relating to Freedom of Information or
Environmental Information Regulations, please do not hesitate to contact
us, quoting the reference number on this correspondence. All insurance
matters must be taken up with your contact in that department quoting your
insurance claim number.

 

If you are unhappy with the way the County Council has handled your
request for information you may request an internal review of the request.
This will be carried out by a member of the County Council Legal Services
Team, who has had no prior involvement with the request. Requests for an
internal review should be sent to the Information Governance Unit at the
address above (within 2 months of this correspondence) and should detail
in writing your grounds of appeal.

 

If you are unhappy with the outcome of the internal review you are
entitled to ask the Information Commissioner to investigate your
complaint. You should write to: FOI/EIR Complaints Resolution, Information
Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9
5AF.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Information Access Team

Postal Point CHN320

Hertfordshire County Council, County Hall, Pegs Lane, Hertford, SG13 8DE

t: 01992 555848 Comnet / Internal: 25848

Fax: 01992 588117

Email: [3][email address]

show quoted sections

North Hertfordshire District Council,

Your Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations
request

Dear [name removed] Adams,

Thank you for your written request for information, your reference number
AF70372030

Your request is being considered and a response will be provided within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations. Note
that not all information is automatically provided, as information may be
subject to statutory exemptions or exceptions from disclosure (see below).

You might also wish to view the NHDC disclosure log of previous requests,
some of which may answer some, or all of your current query. The log can
be found on the NHDC website at http://www.north-herts.gov.uk/foi

If appropriate, the information may be provided in paper copy, normal font
size. If you require an alternative format (audio, Braille, large print)
or another language, please contact me with your requirements.

Our response will clearly indicate whether your request for information
has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act or under the
Environmental Information Regulations.

FOI/EIR legislation defines a number of exemptions/exceptions which may
prevent release of the information you have requested. There will be an
assessment of your request and if any of the exemptions/exceptions apply
then the information will not be released. You will be informed of the
exemptions/exceptions applied if this is the case, including your rights
to seek a review of the decision or appeal to the ICO.

If the information you request contains reference to a third party then
they may be consulted prior to a decision being taken on whether or not to
release the information to you. You will be informed if this is the case.

There may be a fee payable for this information, this will be considered
and you will be informed if any fees are payable. In this event the fee
must be paid before the information is processed and released. The 20
working day time limit for the responses is suspended until receipt of
payment.

Further information explaining the Council's process for responding to
information requests is available in our reception or on our website. If
you have any queries about the process of your request then please do not
hesitate to contact me.

If after receiving the response, you feel dissatisfied with the
information provided, or you disagree with a refusal decision, you have
the right to seek a review of the decision. We will accept a request for a
review up to 60 days after our response. After that date we consider the
case closed.

It is important that you include the above reference number when
communicating with Customer Services

Further information is also available from the Information Commissioner
at:
Information Commissioners Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 0303 123 1113 (or 01625 545745 if you would prefer not to call
an ‘03’ number, or +44 1625 545745 if calling from overseas)
https://ico.org.uk/

Thank you for your request.

Yours Sincerely

Information & Asset Team
North Hertfordshire District Council

show quoted sections

1 Attachment

Dear Mr [name removed],

 

With regards to your recent FOI request 18/450 (SOUTH)

 

“I am writing to make an open government request for all the information
to which I am entitled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

Using your telephone system call data/analytics as generally provided by
your telephone system provider and/or telephone line provider or available
from them upon your request please send me the following information for
each month within the time period: 1st July 2017 to 31st June 2018:

 

• 1. The total amount of inbound telephone calls that were received by
your local authority that were answered between 9am-5pm on a Monday -
Friday basis

 

• 2. The total amount of inbound telephone calls that were received by
your local authority that were unanswered between 9am-5pm on a Monday -
Friday basis

 

• 3. The total amount of inbound telephone calls that were received by
your local authority that were answered outside of 9am-5pm on a Monday -
Friday basis

 

• 4. What was the total amount of inbound telephone calls that were
received by your local authority that were unanswered outside of 9am-5pm
on a Monday - Friday basis

 

I would like the above information to be provided to me as an electronic
copy via email.”

 

The information you have requested is within the attached excel document.
South Oxfordshire District Council shares its telephone system with Vale
of White Horse District Council, so the figures within are the joint
figures for the two councils (and cannot be separated).

 

Please treat this as the councils’ formal response under the 2000 Act.  If
you are not satisfied with the decision I have made in response to your
request, you may make a complaint under the council's complaints
procedure.  If you remain dissatisfied after following that procedure, you
have the right under Section 50 of the 2000 Act to complain to the
Information Commissioner if you feel the council has not dealt with your
request properly. You can contact the Commissioner at Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF (telephone number: 01625 545745).
You can also find further information at [1]www.ico.org.uk.

 

Regards,

 

Lee Brown

IT Manager

Corporate Services

Tel: 01235 422340

Email: [2][email address]

 

To find out more about how the council holds, uses and stores your
personal data, please click on the appropriate council’s link
[3]www.southoxon.gov.uk [4]www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/gdpr
4. http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/gdpr

Jenny Clayton,

Hi,

 

Karen has messaged me the following selection-

 

Starter – Mushrooms

 

Main – Steak (Medium)

 

Sticky Toffee Pudding

 

If you have any queries let me know and I’ll text Karen.

 

Regards,

 

 

Jenny Clayton,

 

Strategic Finance Manager

 

Ext 6013

 

P Save Paper - Do you really need to print this e-mail?

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. blocked::http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/events
http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/events
2. blocked::http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/news
http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/news

M27 Southampton Junctions,

1 Attachment

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

As you know, Highways England is progressing with an improvement scheme at
M27 junctions in Southampton. If you recall, this scheme was presented at
public consultation in autumn 2017.

 

The scheme will help to improve safety and journey time reliability, and
support Southampton City Council’s efforts to improve local air quality
and support regional and local economic growth.

 

Following careful consideration of all the responses and comments
received, I am pleased to announce the preferred route for the scheme. It
consists of improvements to Junction 8 and Windhover Roundabout to create
capacity and reduce congestion by widening the slip roads, and also
improvements to cycling, pedestrian and crossing facilities.

 

Details of the preferred route including technical reports relating to the
selection process are available on our scheme webpage:

 

[1]https://highwaysengland.co.uk/projects/m...

 

Brochures are also available at the following locations:

 

Pilands Wood Community Pilands Wood Centre/Chamberlayne Rd, Southampton
Association SO31 8DT
Hedge End 2000 Centre 2000 Centre, St Johns Road, Hedge End,
Southampton, SO30 4AF
Civic Centre  
Gateway
City Library Civic Centre, Southampton, SO14 7LY
Northam Community Centre Kent St, Southampton, SO14 5SP
HighPoint Venue Bursledon Rd, Thornhill, Southampton, SO19 8BR
Bitterne Library Bitterne Rd E, Southampton, SO18 5EG
Cobbett Hub & Library Cobbett Rd, Southampton, SO18 1HL

 

 

Following the announcement of the preferred route, we will carry out
surveys and investigations to allow us to design the scheme in more detail
ahead of a further round of public engagement later this year.

 

If you have any queries regarding the M27 Southampton junctions scheme,
please speak to our customer contact centre on 0300 123 5000 or email us
at [2][email address].

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

M27 Southampton Junctions Improvements Scheme
Highways England | Bridge House| 1 Walnut Tree Close| Guildford| GU1 4LZ
Web: [3]http://highwaysengland.co.uk

Highways England Company Limited | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1
Walnut Tree Close, Guildford  GU1 4LZ  | Registered in England and Wales
No. 9346363

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[4]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[5][email address]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. https://highwaysengland.co.uk/projects/m...
2. file:///tmp/[email address]
3. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...
4. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
5. mailto:[email address]

FOI Team Mailbox,

1 Attachment

Please find attached the reply to your FOI request

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

FOI Team

Room 405

70 Whitehall,

London, SW1A 2AS

E-mail -[1][email address

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Internal admin authority

6 Attachments

Hi Elaine,

 

SpAds have considered and are content. They would advise that this should
go to the DFM for comment and that previously prepared lines to take
should be considered ahead of release.

 

Many thanks,

 

Katie

 

 

From: Ramsay E (Elaine) <[email address]>
Sent: 04 July 2019 14:54
To: Communications CSSE <[email address]>; Lunt A (Aislinn)
<[email address]>; Jenkins K (Kirsty) <[email address]>; FoI
SpAds PO <[email address]>; Phair K (Katie) <[email address]>;
Lennon G (Grainne) <[email address]>; Wood HB (Helen)
<[email address]>; Chief Planner <[email address]>
Cc: [email address]; Stewart J (Jackie)
<[email address]>
Subject: Clearance Request - FOI/19/01501 - [name removed] [name removed] - St Ambrose
High School (EIR)

 

SpAds/Comms colleagues

cc Review Team and Media for info only.

 

Please find attached a proposed response to an EIR request from Mr [name removed]
[name removed] FOI/19/01501.  Mr [name removed] has asked the question below in relation
to St Ambrose High School, Coatbridge.

 

“All information held by the [name removed]ish Government on the original decision
by [name removed]ish Ministers to approve the St Ambrose campus site in Coatbridge,
including but not limited to any briefing documents, proposals, decision
notices, risk assessments.”

 

I attach for clearance/comment:
The proposed response;

The schedule of information and;

7 documents which we feel are in scope of the question asked.

Please note the content of this request mirrors that of a previous EIR
from [name removed]ish Hazards on the same topic, which was cleared for issue on
3^rd July. (FOI/19/01466)

 

Grateful for comments/clearance before Wednesday 10 July to enable this
request to reach Mr Stewarts recess box.

 

Many thanks

Happy to discuss

 

Elaine

 

Elaine Ramsay | Planning Decisions | Planning & Architecture | [name removed]ish
Government | T:01312447867 

[1]SG_Quaternary_govscot_RGB 60mm[2]Twitter_Logo_Blue signature
60mm[3]Wordpress 60mm sig [4]npf sig
60mm [5]SAQP-for-signature [6]e_Devel_Scot_ signature 60mm

 

 

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. https://beta.gov.scot/policies/planning-...
2. https://twitter.com/ScotGovPlanning
3. http://blogs.scotland.gov.uk/planningarc...
4. https://npfactionprogramme.com/
5. https://blogs.gov.scot/planning-architec...
6. http://edevelopment.scot/

Internal admin authority

6 Attachments

Resending to copy education comms colleagues who are leading on this.

 

From: Ramsay E (Elaine) <[email address]>
Sent: 04 July 2019 14:54
To: Communications CSSE <[email address]>; Lunt A (Aislinn)
<[email address]>; Jenkins K (Kirsty) <[email address]>; FoI
SpAds PO <[email address]>; Phair K (Katie) <[email address]>;
Lennon G (Grainne) <[email address]>; Wood HB (Helen)
<[email address]>; Chief Planner <[email address]>
Cc: [email address]; Stewart J (Jackie)
<[email address]>
Subject: Clearance Request - FOI/19/01501 - [name removed] [name removed] - St Ambrose
High School (EIR)

 

SpAds/Comms colleagues

cc Review Team and Media for info only.

 

Please find attached a proposed response to an EIR request from Mr [name removed]
[name removed] FOI/19/01501.  Mr [name removed] has asked the question below in relation
to St Ambrose High School, Coatbridge.

 

“All information held by the [name removed]ish Government on the original decision
by [name removed]ish Ministers to approve the St Ambrose campus site in Coatbridge,
including but not limited to any briefing documents, proposals, decision
notices, risk assessments.”

 

I attach for clearance/comment:
The proposed response;

The schedule of information and;

7 documents which we feel are in scope of the question asked.

Please note the content of this request mirrors that of a previous EIR
from [name removed]ish Hazards on the same topic, which was cleared for issue on
3^rd July. (FOI/19/01466)

 

Grateful for comments/clearance before Wednesday 10 July to enable this
request to reach Mr Stewarts recess box.

 

Many thanks

Happy to discuss

 

Elaine

 

Elaine Ramsay | Planning Decisions | Planning & Architecture | [name removed]ish
Government | T:01312447867 

[1]SG_Quaternary_govscot_RGB 60mm[2]Twitter_Logo_Blue signature
60mm[3]Wordpress 60mm sig [4]npf sig
60mm [5]SAQP-for-signature [6]e_Devel_Scot_ signature 60mm

 

 

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. https://beta.gov.scot/policies/planning-...
2. https://twitter.com/ScotGovPlanning
3. http://blogs.scotland.gov.uk/planningarc...
4. https://npfactionprogramme.com/
5. https://blogs.gov.scot/planning-architec...
6. http://edevelopment.scot/

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

We are holding a proposed response by the Scottish Government to a request for

"All information held by the Scottish Government on the original decision by Scottish Ministers to approve the St Ambrose campus site in Coatbridge, including but not limited to any briefing documents, proposals, decision notices, risk assessments"

This includes the "7 documents which we feel are in scope of the question asked" mentioned in the above correspondence.

The correspondence was sent to an unconnected FOI request thread on WhatDoTheyKnow. We do not know why this occurred. We are not publishing the material as the proposed response contains personal information of third parties. We have also been informed it contains material described as "Commercially sensitive data to the Scottish Ministers to complete their consideration of the proposal letter and extension letter for Planning Application 12/00163/AMD and thereafter, a title matter relating to access to a school site dated 2012". Anyone interested in the material is welcome to get in touch with us at WhatDoTheyKnow.com

-- Richard, WhatDoTheyKnow.com volunteer

Diane Mcdonald,

6 Attachments

Please find attached letter in response to your request for an internal
review, sent on behalf of Simon Kent.

 

 

 

  Diane McDonald

  PA to Senior Management Team

[1]cid:image001.jpg@01D2AA3B.95E1EED0  

 

Dl: 01423 537443

Email: [2][email address]

P: Kings Road, Harrogate, HG1 5LA

[3]www.harrogateconventioncentre.co.uk

[4]http://hicyorkshiremail.co.uk/mvcs2/DDIm...

 

 

 

[7]CHS-Awards-Winner-Harrogate

 

 

 

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

This email is Scanned by MailMarshal

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.harrogateconventioncentre.co....
4. https://www.facebook.com/Harrogate-Inter...
5. https://twitter.com/HgtConventions?lang=...
6. https://www.linkedin.com/company-beta/55...
7. https://www.harrogateconventioncentre.co...

[Name Removed], [Name Removed],

2 Attachments

Dear [Name Removed]

 

In that case they would need to receive the Worker privacy notice, which
is attached.  In terms of the examinations, this is not something that
would be covered by the privacy notice.  However, this should have gone
through the Ethics committee who will advise on the appropriate protocol. 
Has this been done?  If advice is required on this, please contact James
Wolffsohn, who is chair of the Ethics committee.

 

Best regards,

 

[Name Removed]

 

[Name Removed] [Name Removed]
[Role Removed]
[1]http://static.aston.ac.uk/emails/sigs/au...
[Role Removed] [Role Removed]
Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK
[Number Removed]
aston.ac.uk

 

The contents of this email and any attachments may be privileged and are
confidential.  It may not be disclosed to or used by anyone other than the
addressee, nor copied in any way.  If received in error, please notify the
sender and then delete it from your system. 

 

From: [Name Removed], [Name Removed]
Sent: 30 January 2020 11:11
To: [Name Removed], [Name Removed] <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Aston Medical School - PPI Programme

 

Dear [Name Removed],

 

Thank you for getting back to me.

The simulated patients are going to be recruited on a ‘casual worker’
basis, involving them filling out a casual engagement form to be signed
off by a finance partner. The patients will fill in a weekly timesheet,
this will be sent to the relevant manager to complete and submit for
payment.

 

Kind regards,

[Name Removed]

 

From: [Name Removed], [Name Removed] <[2][email address]>
Sent: 30 January 2020 11:03
To: [Name Removed], [Name Removed] <[3][email address]>
Subject: RE: Aston Medical School - PPI Programme

 

Dear [Name Removed]

 

Please use the attached Volunteers Privacy Notice for the participants in
the PPI Programme.  This allows for reimbursement of expenses.  However,
when we spoke you mentioned that volunteers would be paid.  Could you
please confirm whether they are being paid through payroll?  If so, they
will need to receive a different privacy notice.

 

Best wishes,

 

[Name Removed]

 

[Name Removed] [Name Removed]
[Role Removed]
[4]http://static.aston.ac.uk/emails/sigs/au...
[Role Removed] [Role Removed]
Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK
[Number Removed]
aston.ac.uk

 

The contents of this email and any attachments may be privileged and are
confidential.  It may not be disclosed to or used by anyone other than the
addressee, nor copied in any way.  If received in error, please notify the
sender and then delete it from your system. 

 

From: [Name Removed], [Name Removed]
Sent: 30 January 2020 10:34
To: [Name Removed], [Name Removed] <[5][email address]>
Subject: Aston Medical School - PPI Programme

 

Dear [Name Removed],

 

I need to move forward with the programme as soon as possible, would it be
possible for you to send me the necessary requirements for what is needed
to complete the website. If not would you be able to meet so that we can
discuss what I would need to add to the website so that it can be created.

 

Kind regards,

[Name Removed]

References

Visible links
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[email address]
5. mailto:[email address]

FOI Team Mailbox,

1 Attachment

Please find attached the reply to your FOI request

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

FOI Team

Room 405

70 Whitehall,

London, SW1A 2AS

E-mail -[1][email address

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Mayor of London,

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Ballam,
Please find attached our response to your request of 2 March 2020.
Unfortunately, I am still waiting for confirmation of the responses 4c and
5c and 6c, which will follow as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely
Information Governance Team

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

Dear Greater London Authority,
Please could you provide the following information with regards to your
current printing expenditure :

1. Current printing and photocopier contract details?
a. Photocopiers/MFD?s
b. Printers
c. Print room / reprographics

2. Companies awarded?
a. Photocopiers/MFDs
b. Printers
c. Print room / reprographics

3. Length of contract/s and end dates?
a. Photocopiers/MFDs
b. Printers
c. Print room / reprographics

4. Number of devices?
a. Photocopiers/MFDs
b. Printers
c. Print room / reprographics

5. Annual print/copy volume
a. Photocopiers/MFDs
b. Printers
c. Print room / reprographics

6. Annual spend?
a. Photocopiers/MFDs
b. Printers
c. Print room / reprographics

7. Details on how these were procured. i.e. By Framework
a. Procurement method
b. If Framework, please state which one

8. Do you have any print management software? If so, which
software?

9. Do they supply you with any scanning software (additional to the
software native to the device)?

10. What Document Management solution/s do you currently use within
your organization?

11. What PDF software do you pay for? And how many licenses do you
pay for (an average per annum would be a good number here please)?

Yours faithfully,
Lauren Ballam

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

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[email address]

Is [email address] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Greater London Authority? If so, please contact us using this
form:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

NHS health information and advice about coronavirus can be found at
[1]nhs.uk/coronavirus

 
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY NOTICE:
The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged
materials. For more information
see [2]https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/email...

References

Visible links
1. https://nhs.uk/coronavirus
2. https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/email...