Kier Highways Charging Third Parties 'Cost'
Dear Birmingham City Council,
Further to https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
As you are aware, your Council has provided contradictory information to me about Kier’s pricing and recovery. To quote your council, the information I was given in response was incorrect. https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/210602.... Despite this, I am without clear explanations.
Your 02/06/2021 letter fails to address much. To state that ‘to calculate the cost to the third party, Kier uses a Schedule of Rates (KSoR) that is specific to this contract’ suggests a lack of BCC understanding. The KSoR is not specific, particular or individual to the contract, it is a schedule used nationwide by Kier. The schedule followed the failure of National Highways ‘NSoRC’ (National Schedule of Repair Costs). National Highways freed Kier (by deed of variation) from the public-protective ‘cost +uplift’ arrangement. The new process appears to fit the profiting from claims process their lawyers describe https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/inflat...
Indeed, your reference to cost-plus is all the more concerning and confusing given the KSoR replaced such a process, the KSoR is not 'cost-reimbursable it does not appear to fit the 'defined cost' methodology - which it appears is how BCC/BHL are charged - with Third parties being billed, seemingly with your agreement, more.
The KSoR, the figures, accompany every claim, they are in the public domain, and there is nothing ‘commercially sensitive’ about them.
1. What I wish to know, to be provided information about, is the pricing used to compile a charge to BCC/BHL where a TP is not identified.
2. Is the KSoR utilised?
3. Or is one set of (lower) rates utilised to compile an attendance/repair where no Third-Party (driver, fleet or haulier) is identified and the higher KSoR rates when there is a party to pursue.
4. I would welcome all information you possess about this dual-pricing situation and, given the period now passed since I raised concerns, the investigations/enquiries and exchanges with Kier you have undertaken to establish what is occurring and why.
Yours sincerely,
Mr P Swift
Information request
Our reference: 42185254
Your reference: [FOI #866772 email]
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear Mr Swift
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Thank you for your request for information that was received on 23 June
2022 concerning:
Dear Birmingham City Council,
Further to
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
As you are aware, your Council has provided contradictory information to
me about Kier's pricing and recovery. To quote your council, the
information I was given in response was incorrect.
https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/210602....
Despite this, I am without clear explanations.
Your 02/06/2021 letter fails to address much. To state that 'to calculate
the cost to the third party, Kier uses a Schedule of Rates (KSoR) that is
specific to this contract' suggests a lack of BCC understanding. The KSoR
is not specific, particular or individual to the contract, it is a
schedule used nationwide by Kier. The schedule followed the failure of
National Highways 'NSoRC' (National Schedule of Repair Costs). National
Highways freed Kier (by deed of variation) from the public-protective
'cost +uplift' arrangement. The new process appears to fit the profiting
from claims process their lawyers describe
https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/inflat...
Indeed, your reference to cost-plus is all the more concerning and
confusing given the KSoR replaced such a process, the KSoR is not
'cost-reimbursable it does not appear to fit the 'defined cost'
methodology - which it appears is how BCC/BHL are charged - with Third
parties being billed, seemingly with your agreement, more.
The KSoR, the figures, accompany every claim, they are in the public
domain, and there is nothing 'commercially sensitive' about them.
1. What I wish to know, to be provided information about, is the pricing
used to compile a charge to BCC/BHL where a TP is not identified.
2. Is the KSoR utilised?
3. Or is one set of (lower) rates utilised to compile an attendance/repair
where no Third-Party (driver, fleet or haulier) is identified and the
higher KSoR rates when there is a party to pursue.
4. I would welcome all information you possess about this dual-pricing
situation and, given the period now passed since I raised concerns, the
investigations/enquiries and exchanges with Kier you have undertaken to
establish what is occurring and why.
Yours sincerely,
Mr P Swift...
We are dealing with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
and we aim to send a response by 21 July 2022 or as soon as possible. We
apologise for the delay due to a notification error from the
'Whatdotheyknow' site which has resulted in a delay in receiving your
request.
In some case, a fee may be payable. If we decide a fee is payable, we will
send you a fee notice and we will require you to pay the fee before
proceeding with your request.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 may restrict the release of some or
all of the information you have requested. We will carry out an assessment
and if any exemptions apply to some or all of the information then we
might not provide that information to you. We will inform you if this is
the case and advise you of your rights to request an internal review and
to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office.
We will also advise you if we cannot provide you with the information
requested for any other reason together with the reason(s) why and details
of how you may appeal (if appropriate).
You may experience understandable delays when making information rights
requests post pandemic, this could be due to changes in working patterns,
sickness and access to information not held electronically.
Yours sincerely
Jenny Bent
Business Support Coordinator
Digital & Customer Support Services
[email address]
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL DISCLAIMER This email contains proprietary
confidential information some or all of which may be legally privileged
and/or subject to the provisions of privacy legislation. It is intended
solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail; you must not
use, disclose, copy, print or disseminate the information contained within
this e-mail. Please notify the author immediately by replying to this
email. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states these to be the views
of Birmingham City Council. This email has been scanned for all viruses
and all reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure that no viruses
are present. Birmingham City Council cannot accept responsibility for any
loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
Birmingham City Council The information contained within this e-mail (and
any attachment) sent by Birmingham City Council is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient or entity
to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient please
accept our apologies and notify the sender immediately. Unauthorised
access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted and may be
unlawful. Any e-mail including its content may be monitored and used by
Birmingham City Council for reasons of security and for monitoring
internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. E-mail blocking
software may also be used. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the originator and do not necessarily represent those of
Birmingham City Council. We cannot guarantee that this message or any
attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended.
Information request
Our reference: 42185254
Your reference: [FOI #866772 email]
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear Mr Swift
Thank you for your request for information received on 23 June 2022.
Please find attached our response to your request.
Yours sincerely
Jenny Bent
Business Support Coordinator
Digital & Customer Support Services
[email address]
Re Use of Public Sector Information
Where Birmingham City Council is the copyright holder of any information
that may be released, re-use for personal, educational or non-commercial
purposes is permitted without further reference to the City Council. Where
the re-use is for other purposes, such as commercial re-use, the applicant
should notify the City Council in writing to seek approval or agree terms
for re-use
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL DISCLAIMER This email contains proprietary
confidential information some or all of which may be legally privileged
and/or subject to the provisions of privacy legislation. It is intended
solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail; you must not
use, disclose, copy, print or disseminate the information contained within
this e-mail. Please notify the author immediately by replying to this
email. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states these to be the views
of Birmingham City Council. This email has been scanned for all viruses
and all reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure that no viruses
are present. Birmingham City Council cannot accept responsibility for any
loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
Birmingham City Council The information contained within this e-mail (and
any attachment) sent by Birmingham City Council is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient or entity
to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient please
accept our apologies and notify the sender immediately. Unauthorised
access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted and may be
unlawful. Any e-mail including its content may be monitored and used by
Birmingham City Council for reasons of security and for monitoring
internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. E-mail blocking
software may also be used. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the originator and do not necessarily represent those of
Birmingham City Council. We cannot guarantee that this message or any
attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended.
Dear Birmingham City Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Birmingham City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Kier Highways Charging Third Parties 'Cost''.
the letter to which you refer does not, as I explained in my submission, address this request.
If you believe to the contrary, I anticipate you would have referred me to the relevant sections. You have not.
You have not cited the exemption upon which you are relying to withhold the information
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/k...
Yours faithfully,
Mr P Swift
Mr P Swift left an annotation ()
https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/birmin...
‘The Commissioner would like to place on record that during his investigation, the Council repeatedly failed to engage properly with the questions put to it and the actions it was asked to take.
He also notes with concern that the Council failed to comply with the information notice (which is published on his website) within the specified timescale’.
Dear Birmingham City Council,
Please advise by when i can expect the Internal Review
Yours sincerely,
Mr P Swift
Dear Mr Swift
Thank you for your email.
Please advise which part of the response provided do you require to be
reviewed.
Kind regards
Jenny Bent
Digital & Customer Support Services
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear Birmingham City Council,
Please advise by when i can expect the Internal Review
Yours sincerely,
Mr P Swift
Dear Birmingham City Council,
You have not addressed the request but referred me to a letter:
'The questions that you have asked are dealt with by the response provided to
you by the Council on 2 June 2021, a copy of which is attached for your
reference. We therefore consider that there is no further response necessary.'
The letter does not address the request - just as it does not address other requests that I have presented.
The letter displays the questions posed. It does not include those of 31/05/2022, this request unsurprisingly as the letter pre-dates the request by a year. I am seeking a specific response to this request:
1. is the information held? This is a s1* requirement as yet unaddressed
And believing the information is held, as you believe you have supplied it:
2. the provision of the information
Yours sincerely,
Mr P Swift
* https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200...
General right of access to information held by public authorities.
(1)Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—
(a)to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
(b)if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.
Mr P Swift left an annotation ()
From: ICO Casework
Sent: 03 October 2022 15:22
To: Philip Swift
Subject: ICO Case Reference: IC-193922-F2S0
3 October 2022
Case Reference: IC-193922-F2S0
Dear Mr Swift,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Your complaint about: Birmingham City Council
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/k...
Thank you for your complaint about the time the above public authority has taken to carry out an internal review you requested on 7 July 2022.
Before we accept a complaint, we expect you to give the public authority the chance to review its initial response to your request for information. We refer to this reconsideration as an internal review.
FOIA does not set out a statutory time for completing an internal review, but we consider a reasonable timeframe in most cases is 20 working days from the date of the request for an internal review. For complex or high volume requests we accept that up to 40 working days is a reasonable timeframe.
I have written to the public authority and have asked it to give you its internal review outcome within 10 working days. If you do not receive the internal review outcome within this deadline please let us know by 17 October 2022.
If you remain dissatisfied once you receive the internal review and would like to appeal the outcome, please contact us within three months and include a copy of the internal review decision.
Yours sincerely,
Anjum Iqbal
Case Officer
Information Commissioner's Office
Information request
Our reference: 42185254
Your reference: [FOI #866772 email]
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear Mr Swift
Information requested by: Mr P Swift
Information requested by:
I am writing further to your email dated 26^th September 2022 seeking a
review of the response to the Freedom of Information request.
Your request:
As you are aware, your Council has provided contradictory information to
me about Kier's pricing and recovery. To quote your council, the
information I was given in response was incorrect.
https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/210602....
Despite this, I am without clear explanations.
Your 02/06/2021 letter fails to address much. To state that 'to calculate
the cost to the third party, Kier uses a Schedule of Rates (KSoR) that is
specific to this contract' suggests a lack of BCC understanding. The KSoR
is not specific, particular or individual to the contract, it is a
schedule used nationwide by Kier. The schedule followed the failure of
National Highways 'NSoRC' (National Schedule of Repair Costs). National
Highways freed Kier (by deed of variation) from the public-protective
'cost +uplift' arrangement. The new process appears to fit the profiting
from claims process their lawyers describe
https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/inflat...
Indeed, your reference to cost-plus is all the more concerning and
confusing given the KSoR replaced such a process, the KSoR is not
'cost-reimbursable it does not appear to fit the 'defined cost'
methodology - which it appears is how BCC/BHL are charged - with Third
parties being billed, seemingly with your agreement, more.
The KSoR, the figures, accompany every claim, they are in the public
domain, and there is nothing 'commercially sensitive' about them.
1. What I wish to know, to be provided information about, is the pricing
used to compile a charge to BCC/BHL where a TP is not identified.
2. Is the KSoR utilised?
3. Or is one set of (lower) rates utilised to compile an attendance/repair
where no Third-Party (driver, fleet or haulier) is identified and the
higher KSoR rates when there is a party to pursue.
4. I would welcome all information you possess about this dual-pricing
situation and, given the period now passed since I raised concerns, the
investigations/enquiries and exchanges with Kier you have undertaken to
establish what is occurring and why.
Decision
The panel have reviewed the request and the response provided. The panel
invited the service area to provide clarification to the response as
follows:
Where a third party is responsible for damage to the council's highway
infrastructure:
1. Kier repairs the damage using the resources that it employs and for
which it charges BHL under the Interim Services Contract, within the
submission of its full-service provision costs.
2. BHL reviews and approves those costs in accordance with its contract.
The approved cost is paid by BHL to Kier and (after the council's own
review) the council pays the approved cost to BHL.
Points a) and b) will apply whether a third party has been identified or
not.
The panel did not uphold the review.
If you are not content with the outcome of this Internal Review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a
further decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedon...
Helpline on 0303 123 1113
Yours sincerely
Mr Malkiat Thiarai
Head of Corporate Information Management
Digital & Customer Services
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL DISCLAIMER This email contains proprietary
confidential information some or all of which may be legally privileged
and/or subject to the provisions of privacy legislation. It is intended
solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail; you must not
use, disclose, copy, print or disseminate the information contained within
this e-mail. Please notify the author immediately by replying to this
email. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states these to be the views
of Birmingham City Council. This email has been scanned for all viruses
and all reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure that no viruses
are present. Birmingham City Council cannot accept responsibility for any
loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
Birmingham City Council The information contained within this e-mail (and
any attachment) sent by Birmingham City Council is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient or entity
to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient please
accept our apologies and notify the sender immediately. Unauthorised
access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted and may be
unlawful. Any e-mail including its content may be monitored and used by
Birmingham City Council for reasons of security and for monitoring
internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. E-mail blocking
software may also be used. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the originator and do not necessarily represent those of
Birmingham City Council. We cannot guarantee that this message or any
attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended.
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 ()
from the council:
The questions that you have asked are dealt with by the response provided to
you by the Council on 2 June 2021, a copy of which is attached for your
reference. We therefore consider that there is no further response necessary."