Indurance for publicly held property

The request was partially successful.

Dear Kent County Council,

I make this request under the Freedom of Information Act.

A recent decision notice from the Information Commissioner (below at 26) indicated that a certain borough council couldn't or wouldn't insure some it's assets and property because of its "inherent vulnerability" because it was out in public. This caused me some worry because it would indicate that large sections of public property at all public authorities would not be insured as to loss or damage because it is out in public. This indicates to me that, for the same reasons, insurers would be reluctant to insure any property out in public at any authority for the reasons below at 26. This is plainly not a proper situation for the taxpayer to be in these days of financial hardship.

Please therefore indicate how your public authority insures any/all of its property or assets as out in public. Further as the public assets are under the stewardship of your public authority what steps are taken to secure/safeguard the property/assets under your control in order that suitable insurance cover could be obtained. Please also indicate precisely as to whether you have the same problems as regards insurance cover as the authority in the decision notice at 26 because you clearly control public assets in similar circumstances to that public authority. Lastly would your authority be "reluctant to admit" to the public that you have no cover for the reasons as mentioned below at 26 if you have the same inherent problems.

If you require any further information or clarification please feel free to ask. Please answer the request in the context of the statement below at 26 which is equally applicable to any public authority controlling public assets held out in public.

Kind regards,

TONY WISE

26.The council explained to the complainant that no insurance claims had been submitted about these thefts of cable. In subsequent discussions with the Commissioner, the council clarified that the cable was not insured, hence no claim was possible. It explained that, in common with much public property located outdoors, insurance for such items is problematic due to the inherent vulnerability of the property. The council was initially reluctant to admit this to the complainant, being concerned that if this knowledge entered the public domain it might stimulate further thefts. It has subsequently decided to make this public knowledge, due to the high level of local interest. The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that no information will be held on the “detail of any claims made to any insurer as regards these thefts[…]”.

Kent County Council

Dear Mr Wise

Thank you for your email below.

Kent County Council acknowledges your request for information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Assuming KCC holds this information, we
will endeavour to supply the data to you as soon as possible but no later
than 6th September 2011 (20 working days from date of receipt).

We will advise you as soon as possible if we do not hold this information
or if there are exemptions to be considered and/or any costs for providing
the information. Please quote our reference - FOI/11/1140 - in any
communication regarding this particular request.

Best regards

Jemila Dodge
Corporate Access to Information Officer
Information Resilience & Transparency Team,
Business Strategy & Support, Governance & Law
Kent County Council, Room 2.71, Sessions House, County Road, Maidstone,
ME14 1XQ
Tel: 01622 696265, Internal 7000 6265,
Fax: 01622 696075
[1]http://www.kent.gov.uk/your_council/cont...

show quoted sections

Kent County Council

Dear Mr Wise

Thank you for your request for information.

Local authorities own much property in the open for example waste bins,
signs, buildings etc and only insures assets which are either capable of
being insured or are economically viable to insure. Kent County Council
purchases adequate insurance to cover its risks. We do not purchase all
the insurance products available even if we have an exposure to the risk
that such cover might protect against as this would not deliver value for
money. Where we consider a certain aspect of insurance cover is required
and is cost effective then we will seek to obtain it.

Many councils self insure some of the repair or replacement costs of
property that is either damaged or stolen. Self insured levels vary
between councils. County Councils such as Kent generally work with much
higher self insured levels than district or smaller type councils. This is
done on the basis that the premium charged to insure such items may exceed
the cost of actually repairing or replacing them in which case it is not
cost effective to purchase insurance.

KCC self insures many of its assets but not all and this has proven to be
the most cost effective model. Since the Council is a highway authority
our assets are extensive and also include all highways and street
furniture. The cost to insure such items would be prohibitive and would
not represent a good use of public funds and is just one example of the
type of property we chose not to insure.

It may not be possible for local authorities to purchase insurance for
property kept in the open or the terms of their current insurance contract
does not cover a particular risk.

Where the local authority insurance sector does not offer a product then
cover cannot be purchased. Where a risk is not covered under an existing
contract of insurance but cover is available a local authority may request
their current insurer to extend the terms of cover for which additional
premium will most likely be required. An insurer is not obliged to extend
the cover it offers to a particular local authority or the sector as a
whole. Local authority insurers tend to follow the industry standard and
provide the same basic level of cover. Like the authority referred to,
the Council does not have insurance cover for the theft of cables in the
open. It is not a failure on the part of the Council to purchase
insurance to protect against this risk as it is simply not available under
our current arrangements. Furthermore, even if it was available the cost
of any loss would most likely fall within the policy excess which we chose
to meet.

Given the extent of property kept in the open it is not possible to
protect it against all incidents of damage or loss. It is also not
possible to describe all the measures in place to protect the Council's
assets. Security measures are implemented where feasible however it has
to be recognised that these may not in themselves protect against
determined or desperate criminals and again the level of investment is a
balance between available funds and the perceived level of risk.

If you are unhappy with this response, and believe KCC has not complied
with legislation, please ask for a review by following our complaints
process; details can be found at this link
[1]http://www.kent.gov.uk/your_council/have...
on our website. Please quote reference FOI/11/1112.

If you still remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you can
appeal to the Information Commissioner, who oversees compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Details of what you need to do, should
you wish to pursue this course of action, are available from the
Information Commissioner's website
[2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Best regards

Jemila Dodge
Corporate Access to Information Officer
Information Resilience & Transparency Team,
Business Strategy & Support, Governance & Law
Kent County Council, Room 2.71, Sessions House, County Road, Maidstone,
ME14 1XQ
Tel: 01622 696265, Internal 7000 6265,
Fax: 01622 696075
[3]http://www.kent.gov.uk/your_council/cont...

show quoted sections