We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Denny king please sign in and let everyone know.

kapten and bolt app London

We're waiting for Denny king to read a recent response and update the status.

Dear Transport for London,

you approved kapten and bolt to launch a ride app in london,

1. do you have the correspondence between you and these 2 companies? please share what requirements they met , before you authorised then to launch an app

2. can you share any presentation which you have on file from these 2 companies

Yours faithfully,

Denny king

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr King

 

Our Ref:         FOI-0747-1920

 

Thank you for your request received on 12 June 2019 asking for information
about the ride-hailing apps, Kapten and Bolt.

 

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and our information access policy. 

 

Before we begin to process your request, could you please specify the
scope of the information you require. For example, is there a subject
matter or specific keywords you would like our search to cover? If you
could also provide a timeframe for the request.

 

By their nature, emails contain a significant amount of personal data such
as phone numbers and email addresses and so, whilst this process of
redaction does not feature as part of our considerations on whether the
cost limit might apply, the burden created by non-specific requests for
emails is significant and this should be borne in mind before submitting
requests of this nature.

 

The Information Commissioner describes such requests as “fishing
expeditions” as the requesters “have no idea what information, if any,
will be caught by the request”. Such requests are likely to be vexatious
if they:

·         Impose a burden by obliging the authority to sift through a
substantial volume of information to isolate and extract the relevant
details;

·         Encompass information which is only of limited value because of
the wide scope of the request;

·         Create a burden by requiring the authority to spend a
considerable amount of time considering any exemptions and redactions;

·         Be part of a pattern of persistent fishing expeditions by the
same requester.

 

We therefore strongly recommend you outline, as clearly and concisely as
possible, precisely the information and types of document you require.
Requests that lack a clear focus are more likely to lead to concerns about
the processing time required to meet our obligations under the FOI Act.
Please note that we will not be processing your request until we have
received suitable clarification of the information you require.

 

If we hear nothing further from you by 3 July 2019 your response will be
treated as a new request.

 

In the meantime, if you have any queries or would like to discuss your
request, please feel free to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

Senior FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

You normally ask Licensed Operator to show about app before you approve them. Can you share the communications between TFL & Kapten & Bolt Apps before they launched? Can you share any presentation which they supplied ? How many times did you meet them?

Did you discuss these apps with uber ?

How many times did you meet the owners/Operator concerning the apps?

HOPP OPERATIONS LIMITED Trades as BOLT
TRANSOPCO UK LTD Trades as KAPTEN

Yours sincerely,

Denny king

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr King

 

Our Ref:         FOI-0747-1920

 

Thank you for clarifying your request received on 12 June 2019 asking for
information about the ride-hailing apps, Kapten and Bolt.

 

Your request will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. 

 

A response will be sent to you by 10 July 2019. We publish a substantial
range of information on our website on subjects including operational
performance, contracts, expenditure, journey data, governance and our
financial performance. This includes data which is frequently asked for in
FOI requests or other public queries. Please check
[1]http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transpar... to see if this helps you.

 

We will publish anonymised versions of requests and responses on the
[2]www.tfl.gov.uk website. We will not publish your name and we will send
a copy of the response to you before it is published on our website.

 

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

Senior FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[3][TfL request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear Mr King

 

Our Ref:         FOI-0736-1920 / FOI-0747-1920

 

Thank you for your requests received on 10 and 12 June 2019 asking for
information about the ride-hailing apps, miwhip, Kapten, and Bolt.

 

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information (FOI) and our information access policy. We do
hold the information you require.

 

We have met with Bolt on four occasions, two of which related to the
technical review of their proposed solution. We met with Kapten on five
occasions, one of which related to the technical review of their proposed
solution.

 

We have not discussed either Bolt or Kapten with Uber.

 

In accordance with the FOI Act, we are not obliged to supply the
communications we have had with Kapten or Bolt, or the presentation
materials that Kapten, Bolt, or miwhip have shared with us as it is
subject to a statutory exemption to the right of access to information
under section 31(1)(g), which relates to information where disclosure
would be likely to prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its
functions for any of the purposes listed in subsection 31(2) of the FOI
Act, specifically, ‘(2)(c)the purpose of ascertaining whether
circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any
enactment exist or may arise’.

 

In this instance the exemption has been applied as the information is held
only for the purposes of ascertaining whether a Private Hire operator is
complying with the regulations, in accordance with our responsibility for
regulating the private hire trade in London. This information contains
details which otherwise would not have been made available to us and the
exemption applies to protect our ability to clarify and confirm details on
specific issues regarding general licensing concerns. The prejudice would
be caused by disclosure because it would affect our ability to engage with
the taxi and private hire trade and would inhibit the free flow of
information, particularly where there is disclosure of information about
confidential and commercially sensitive data. Effective working between
the trade and the regulator relies on a safe space where information can
be shared at a sufficiently early stage to avoid the need for formal
enforcement action.

 

Additionally, disclosure of information about the business processes
employed by private companies is also likely to prejudice the commercial
interests of those companies if it is disclosed to the wider public, which
would include business competitors. This information would also therefore
be covered by section 43(2) of the FOI Act which exempts information where
disclosure would be likely to prejudice commercial interests. Provision of
commercially sensitive information that was provided to us in the context
of our position as licensing authority would provide business competitors
with an insight into the management and commercial processes of Kapten,
Bolt, and miwhip which would place them at an unfair disadvantage.

 

We recognise that there is a large amount of interest from the public and
the taxi and private hire trade. Our decisions potentially affect the
livelihoods and choices of many people who live and work in London, and as
a public authority with a regulatory role, we expect our decision making
to be transparent and open to scrutiny. Although there is considerable
interest in this matter, it should be borne in mind that this information
is held by us in the context of our role as the licensing authority of
London’s taxi and private hire trade.

 

Disclosure in these circumstances would be likely to prejudice our ability
to exercise our regulatory functions efficiently and effectively,
particularly in the context of investigations, as the investigated party
would be less likely to co-operate if a running commentary or detailed,
commercially sensitive material were to be given out through FOI
disclosures. Effective working between the trade and the regulator relies
on a safe space where information can be shared at a sufficiently early
stage, which may avoid the need for formal enforcement action. Even if
enforcement action is required, the relatively free exchange of
information is useful to all parties.

 

These exemptions benefit the public as it enables greater oversight of the
trade and better scrutiny of services by the regulator and our benefit
because proactive discussion avoids costly enforcement activity, delayed
access to information and increased bureaucracy. Finally, the taxi and
private hire trade benefit from being able to share information in
confidence because it allows them to provide full answers to regulatory
matters whilst protecting their commercial interests.

 

We acknowledge that there is a public interest in understanding the scope
of regulatory activity, and whether concerns have been sufficiently
addressed, we consider that the balance of the public interest supports
the use of these exemptions in order to enable the effective and timely
sharing of information between TfL and the taxi and private hire trade.
There is also a very strong public interest in preserving TfL’s ability‎
to act as an effective regulator (through the sharing of information),
which ensures that the services offered by the trade are safe and
compliant.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

Senior FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

 

FOI-0736-1920

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,
You have not given information about miwhip. How many times have you met them? When did you give them permission or authorization to launch?

Yours sincerely,

Denny king

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr King,

Your request regarding miwhip (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m... ) asked specifically for "a record of the app presentation documents which they submitted.... before their approval". It did not ask for information regarding meetings.

The response you were issued with below addressed the specific question you asked in relation to miwhip.

If you would like to request information regarding meetings (or any other matter), please state clearly and concisely the terms of your request and we will process this accordingly.

Please note that we will not be processing this until we have received clarity on the terms of any further request on this subject.

Yours sincerely

Lee Hill
Information Access Manager

show quoted sections

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Denny king please sign in and let everyone know.