Independent Audit Report following £237,000
Dear National Highways Limited,
On 11/01/2017, a vehicle collision occurred at M61 Southbound marker post 26/5 (nearside bridge parapet damage) in Area 10 then managed by BBMM, Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald, your contractor. Your ref. HE112/010/SG307.
BBMM first wrote to the vehicle insurer in respect of this matter which indicated costs would be less than £10,000.
21/04/2017, your estimate on file was £26,817.53
In or about 03/2019 you paid BBMM £237,000 without any pre-payment audit.
In, or about, 11/2021, an independent audit of the costs was undertaken at your instruction. I ask to be provided:
1. The make-up of the estimate £26,817.53
2. The reasons for the repair delay
3. The date the invoice was presented
4. Any pre-payment audit of the paid invoice
5. The date the invoice was paid
6. The recent independent audit
Yours faithfully,
Mr P Swift
U10D233
Dear Mr P Swift
Thank you for your request relating to Independent Audit Report following
237,000 dated 23 August 2022.
The due date for issuing a response is 21 September 2022.
Please feel free to contact our team if you have any queries quoting
FOI/4106 in any future communications
Kind regards
Amanda Speight
Freedom of Information Officer
You can make new FOI requests and review published responses by
visiting [1]https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
References
Visible links
1. https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
Dear Mr P Swift
Independent Audit Report following 237,000
Thank you for your information request dated 23/08/2022 regarding
Independent Audit Report following 237,000. We have dealt with your
request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
You asked -
Dear National Highways Limited,
On 11/01/2017, a vehicle collision occurred at M61 Southbound marker post
26/5 (nearside bridge parapet damage) in Area 10 then managed by BBMM,
Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald, your contractor. Your ref. HE112/010/SG307.
BBMM first wrote to the vehicle insurer in respect of this matter which
indicated costs would be less than £10,000.
21/04/2017, your estimate on file was £26,817.53
In or about 03/2019 you paid BBMM £237,000 without any pre-payment audit.
In, or about, 11/2021, an independent audit of the costs was undertaken at
your instruction. I ask to be provided:
1. The make-up of the estimate £26,817.53
2. The reasons for the repair delay
3. The date the invoice was presented
4. Any pre-payment audit of the paid invoice
5. The date the invoice was paid
6. The recent independent audit
Yours faithfully,
Mr P Swift
U10D233
Our response
National Highways has considered your request and concluded that the
request as vexatious pursuant of Section 14(1) on the basis of
unreasonable persistence, intransigence and misuse of the legislation
whereby, and as has been explained to you in the past, because
your request is for information (third party claims for damage to crown
property) which falls under its own due process, using the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 to obtain information to challenge the sum being
claimed for a green claim is not an appropriate use of the Act.
As such given the subject of the request and National Highways' previous
responses under FOI 101602, FOI 102202 and FOI 102370 which set out that
further requests received on this subject could be viewed as vexatious,
National Highways has found that this request is vexatious.
Therefore, please take this response as a refusal of your request under
Section 14(1). Please note that National Highways reserves the right under
Section 17(6) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to not issue further
refusal notices for requests on this subject matter that are received from
yourself following the issue of this response.
If you are not satisfied with your response you may ask for an internal
review within 40 working days of receiving the response, by replying to
this email. You can learn more about the internal review process
at [1]https://nationalhighways.co.uk/media/a14....
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted
at [2]https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/ or via the address below -
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Please remember to quote reference number FOI/4106 in any future
communications about this response.
Kind regards
FOI Advice
You can make new FOI requests and review published responses by
visiting [3]https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
References
Visible links
1. https://nationalhighways.co.uk/media/a14...
2. https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/
3. https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
Dear [email address],
I apologise for any offence caused, and am resubmitting my request, having taken into account the reasons for refusal. I would be grateful if you could consider it again on the basis it is not for rates but for a specific document, one which I understood was going to be supplied when sought though 'business as usual' channels but has yet to materialise
I would be grateful if you could provide the reasoning behind your assessment that this was a vexatious request as your grounds do not apply to this specific matter. As you may be aware, the ICO advises that "public authorities must keep in mind that meeting their underlying commitment to transparency and openness may involve absorbing a certain level of disruption and annoyance". Indeed, it is as a last resort that this approach was made in relation to an incident many years ago.
Additionally, the ICO advise that best practice for authorities applying this exemption is to suggest ways in which a request may be made less burdensome (see https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...). However, I fail to see how I could be any more specific, any less burdensome.
The matter involves a claim for over £200,000 in respect of which I believe the report will, again, highlight the issue of excessive, unjustifiable payments for temporary vehicle restraint systems. Indeed, disclosure is likely to reduce the burden of all concerned as it would enable all sides to make informed comments and reach an amicable conclusion.
I am seeking an Internal Review
Yours sincerely,
Mr P Swift
Dear [email address],
I ask that the relevant history of this request is passed to the party undertaking the Internal Review:
I understood I was to be provided assistance by your lawyers, Government Legal Department (GLD) who wrote:
'From: @governmentlegal.gov.uk>, Sent: 18 November 2020 16:43 ' Thank you for your email. I have today contacted my client HE and will endeavour to provide you with as much additional information as possible. I will keep you updated.'
In early 2021, GLD sought an independent audit. It appeared National Highways had been presented with a bill for £237,521.45 and paid it without question, without auditing the sum. This occurred just before the BBBM contract came to an end 04/2019.
In 09/2021, GLD could only advise:
‘Unfortunately we are yet to receive the expert report from [redacted – understood to be the person compiling the Amey report - https://www.northantslive.news/news/nort... ]. This is very frustrating as we had hoped to receive the same before the start of the summer break. I sent [redacted] a chasing email in early August and will send another email today. Hopefully, I will then be able to update you.
I understand that my clients are unable to provide the instructions that HE and contractors receive from Hill Smith.
As regards the charges, I will ask my client again about this’.
I was not updated about the report.
11/2021, GLD transferred the matter back to National Highways.
02 November 2021 17:31 your Network Claims (Green) Team Leader wrote:
‘Although the report was requested some time ago, as you have pointed out, it has only very recently been completed and received at GLD. We will ask SHMA to release the report to you when they have received all of the relevant file documents and have had chance to consider these.’
Almost a year has passed, and the document has not been released. It is evident National Highways were content for the document to be disclosed, and would provide it. It is disappointing to be forced to turn to the FoIA and your stance on my formal request is surprising given the above.
I trust, upon review, the information will be disclosed without further delay.
Yours sincerely,
Mr P Swift
Dear Mr P Swift
Response: Internal Review in relation to request FOI/4106
Further to your e-mail, which was received on 28 October 2022 I have been
asked to undertake a review of the response to your request for
information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI/4106).
You were dissatisfied with the response to your request because National
Highways refused your response under Section 14(1) of the Freedom of
Information 2000 as vexatious.
How I have reviewed your request:
I have now had the opportunity to review your request and the response
provided, and discuss it with the relevant team within National Highways,
and I am satisfied that the request has been correctly refused under
Section 14(1) of the Act for the reasons given in the original response.
To explain further, you set out in your request for review a trail of
correspondence with the Government Legal Department (GLD) related to the
information sought, stating that you had not been provided with it yet by
other means. This correspondence trial indicates that there is already an
ongoing process regarding a third party claim, which has its own due
process and means to challenge. As has been stated previously in other
freedom of information request responses to you, using the Freedom of
Information Act to challenge the sum being sought in a claim is not an
appropriate use of the Act and is deemed vexatious.
Therefore, I am satisfied that owing the theme of this request being the
same as previous requests which have been refused, or had indicated that
future requests on this subject would be refused, as vexatious; that this
request too can be treated as such and that the proper due process for
challenging third party claims costs should be followed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the request has been handled correctly
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and that Section 14(1) of the
Act has been appropriately engaged to refuse the request as vexatious. As
such, I find there is no further action from National Highways regarding
this request. I also uphold National Highways position that any future
requests made regarding this subject will be subject to Section 17(6) of
the Freedom of Information Act whereby National Highways is not required
to issue further refusal notices to requests on the basis it has provided
previous refusals and made it clear that it views the requests as
vexatious.
If you remain unhappy with the outcome of your internal review, you are
entitled to refer your complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office
(ICO) for a decision.
The ICO can be contacted at [1]https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/ or via
the address below -
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
[2]http://www.ico.org.uk
Kind Regards
Jonathan Drysdale
Freedom of Information Manager
Digital Services
National Highways | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD
Web: [3]https://nationalhighways.co.uk/
You can make new FOI requests and review published responses by
visiting [4]https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
References
Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/
3. https://nationalhighways.co.uk/
4. https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Mr P Swift left an annotation ()
Sent: 29 March 2022 12:45
To: highwaysengland.co.uk>
Subject: £237,000 payment to BBMM
Dear [redacted - legal dept. @ NH),
On 11/01/2017, a vehicle collision occurred at M61 Southbound marker post 26/5 (nearside bridge parapet damage) in Area 10 then managed by BBMM – Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald - your contractor. Your ref. HE112/010/SG307.
BBMM first wrote to the vehicle insurer in respect of this matter i.e., your contractor appeared to be handling the claim indicating anticipated costs would be less than £10,000.
21/04/2017, your estimate on file was £26,817.53
In or about 03/2019 you paid BBMM £237,000 without any pre-payment audit.
In, or about, 11/2021, an independent audit of the costs was undertaken. I ask to be provided:
1. The make-up of the estimate £26,817.53
2. The reasons for the repair delay
3. The date the invoice was presented
4. Any pre-payment audit of the paid invoice
5. The date the invoice was paid
6. The recent independent audit
Please confirm the above will be provided in the usual course of business i.e., within 15 working days or whether I need make the request formal, via FoIA, on WDTK
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the NH correspondence register provided to me spasmodically makes reference to this matter but contains no update.