Kier Highways Charging to a TP and the Council

The request was refused by Surrey County Council.

Dear Surrey County Council,

I am seeking clarification https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/k... and information:

4. The basis upon which Kier Highways Ltd is to charge at-fault Third Parties. You state ‘We do not hold this information and it is not held on our behalf.’

A. Please explain why it is not held on your behalf; the contractor is acting in your name, undertaking a council responsibility.

B. Please also provide your audits of the contractor insofar as repair works/costs are concerned. The audits I anticipate addressing:

5. The protection the council put in place to prevent Third Parties being
overcharged i.e.

A. Your extract from the contract in the attached document states ‘costs’ may be pursued.

I am seeking all information the Council possesses relating to your ensuring road users, Third Parties are:

B. being presented ‘cost’ and no more. The charges presented are at odds with ‘costs’.
C. Being afforded the opportunity to carry out the works.

It does not appear protection stated is effective

8. You state ‘Kier recover reasonable costs and any third party would be able to request a
breakdown of costs incurred. There are no “specific” rates as each site will be
different’. The above audits will address whether the Council has satisfied themselves the rates are reasonable and how.

A. Please explain the statement: There are no “specific” rates as each site will be different:
a. It appears each site will have specific rates
b. To what sites are you referring

The above statement is at odds with Kier’s application of the KSoR (Kier Schedule of Rates) which are ‘specific’ rates utilised at ‘all sites’

c. Please ensure the information provided address this incongruity.

With regard to:

2. the schedule of costs for works on the highways i.e. staff, operatives, plant
and materials charged to the Council and. whether the Council is charged, for any works, by Kier Highways by using CECA rates

A. in what respect is confirming whether CECA rates are utilised, a set of rates in the public domain, commercially sensitive.

a. Please address the request for this information i.e. confirm or deny

I note the 'commercial interest' exemption applied to the rates Kier Highways charge the Council. The information I am seeking is:

B. whether Kier Highways utilise the same rates when billing the Council or a Third party for incident attendance and damage repairs.

C. If not, why not

It would be odd if a Third party was liable to Surrey County Council for diminution in value of a damaged chattel in one sum if sued by the council itself and in a different sum if sued by the council via Kier Highways i.e. it would be odd if there were two schedules of rates being utilised for the same works, varying subject to who is to receive the bill; a TP or the council.

D. is the situation 'odd'; I await the relevant information

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Information request
Our reference: 2104983
Your reference: [FOI #769205 email]
 
 
 
Dear Mr Swift
 
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
RE: IR - Kier Highways Ltd 
 
Thank you for your request for information that was received on 28 June
2021
 
We are dealing with your request under the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004 and we aim to send a response by 27 July 2021.
 
The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 may restrict the release of
some or all of the information you have requested. We will carry out an
assessment and if any exceptions 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).
 
Yours sincerely
 
Helen Gilbert
Information Governance Officer
Law & Governance - Resources
 
Surrey County Council | Woodhatch Place | 11 Cockshot Hill | Reigate | RH2
8EF | Working from home | Contact Centre Tel no: 03456 009 009 (9am to
5pm, Monday to Friday, excluding bank holidays) | Email:
[email address]
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
Surrey County Council
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
Surrey County Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Surrey County
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.

Dear Surrey County Council,

20 days have passed since my request was submitted. Please advise by when I can expect to receive the information.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Information request
Our reference: 2104983
Your reference: [FOI #769205 email]
 
Dear Mr Swift
 
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
 
Thank you for your email.
 
We are still considering the request but we need more time to consider it.
We will now try to respond to you by 11 August 2021.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Mary Elliott
Freedom of Information Officer
Law & Governance - Resources
 
Surrey County Council | Woodhatch Place | 11 Cockshot Hill | Reigate | RH2
8EF | Working from home | Contact Centre Tel no: 03456 009 009 (9am to
5pm, Monday to Friday, excluding bank holidays) | 
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
Surrey County Council
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
Surrey County Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Surrey County
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.

Dear Surrey County Council,

Thank you, but why do you require more time?
I beleive I am entitled to an explanation and that this should have been provided; I should not have to chase.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI/COR/SCC, Surrey County Council

Dear Mr Swift

Thank you for your email.

This is due to the availability of staff.

I note that the heading above refers to 'Internal Review'.

Are you requesting an internal review in respect of the above or indeed a further internal review of the original request to which this was a follow up?

Regards

Mary Elliott

Mrs Mary J Elliott
Freedom of Information Officer
Corporate Information Governance Team
(Mondays to Thursdays)

Surrey County Council | Woodhatch Place |11 Cockshot Hill | Reigate | Surrey | RH2 8EF
Working from home | Contact Centre Tel: 03456 009 009 |

Coronavirus - Information and advice
https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/people-and-c...

show quoted sections

Dear FOI/COR/SCC,

You are in breach of the Act.
You have provided no explanation in advance.
Your lack of staff is not a valid exemption.
I am expecting the information I have requested and given the conduct encountered to date, am less than confident my request(s) are being handled appropriately, professionally.
It appears pointless burdening an already under resourced Council with a review. It is my intention to place the matter with the ICO, your breaches to date.
I will review the situation 11/08/2021, or before, assuming a response is received before then. My interest is the information, not complaining!

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

2 Attachments

Information request
Our reference: 2104983
Your reference: [FOI #769205 email]
 
Dear Mr Swift
 
 IR - Kier Highways Ltd 
 
Thank you for your request for information received on 28 June 2021.
 
Please find attached our response to your request.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Mary Elliott
Freedom of Information Officer
Law & Governance - Resources
 
Surrey County Council | Woodhatch Place | 11 Cockshot Hill | Reigate | RH2
8EF | Working from home | Contact Centre Tel no: 03456 009 009 (9am to
5pm, Monday to Friday, excluding bank holidays) | 
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
Surrey County Council
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
Surrey County Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Surrey County
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.

Dear Surrey County Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Surrey County Council's handling of my FOI request 'Kier Highways Charging to a TP and the Council'.

My request is one of a series of requests on the same or very similar subject . My making these to other Authorities is irrelevant save that I am receiving contradictory responses and it a appears Public Authorities are acting in unison to keep information from me. You reference to my enquiries of others reinforces this concern.
I am not conducting a campaign against any party and I now seek all evidence upon which you rely to make this public accusation.
Regarding the interest to the public, please read: https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/releas... 13/12/2018 – APPEAL: EA/2018/0088: A Tribunal’s finding; NOT vexatious but that the Authority’s conduct was lacking:
SERIOUS PURPOSE: ‘We have considered the motive of the requestor and in particular his detailed Reply and exhibits. These submissions supported by the documents provided and annexed have persuaded us not only that the motive of the requestor had a serious purpose and arose from genuine and informed concern but had significant value with a high degree of Public Interest.’
• PROPER USE: On the evidence before us we could not find the request were manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or an improper use of FOIA.
• NO HARASSMENT: Again looking at the evidence before us we do not accept that there could or should have been any harassment or distress (of and to staff) in an organisation of the size and import of the second respondent in this appeal. They were of such a scale that the important information sought by the Appellant should have been within their capacity to process without causing harassment or distress.
• AUTHORITY INADEQUATE / INACCURATE RESPONSES: We find that the failure to recognise and process the requests was principally caused by inadequate or inaccurate responses by the personnel within Public Authority.
• NOT UNREASONABLE: we find this to be the cause of what came to be described as “Obsessive behaviour” on the part of the requestor, which in our view, in all the circumstances was not manifestly unreasonable.
• AUTHORITY PROVIDES WRONG INFORMATION: We have been persuaded that he (Mr Swift) has received erroneous information.
I would appreciate you not making selective, negative comments in the public domain. The bias is unacceptable.
It is a mater for you whether you engage section 14(1) of the Freedom of Act and/or Regulation 12(4) (b).
I am simply trying to establish:
1. whether you are charged one set of rates for damage repairs and Third Parties (drivers, fleets, hauliers or their insurers) another and
2. If so, what the rates are
I should not have to make any further requests to you on this subject.
Kier are using CECA to charge Third Parties.
3. Are they using this schedule to charge your council when, for instance, there is no one identified to claim against?
I believe the questions are straightforward, if not , pleas say, explain what is not understood.
I believe you are avoiding the issue because, I suspect, you are charged much lower rates which suggest you are assisting your contractor to profiteer, failing to protect those you serve and to act contrary to a 2018 judgment (HHJ Godsmark) who believed it would be ‘odd’ if there were different schedules.
Your reference to Highways England is of note and possibly you will appraise yourself of the facts before making comment:
2013 to 2018 Highways England stated damage repair rates were ‘held but commercial sensitive’
2019, being required to produce said rates, Highways England u-turned; stating ‘NOT held’, they withheld the information
I persevered. You call it a campaign, I call it challenging misrepresentation, tenacity, following the evidence and calling the Authority’s bluff. If, for a moment, I accept it was a campaign, please explain the negative connotation given that without my dedication, the rates would not have been released.
The rates which Highways england stated were ‘not held’ (and went o great trouble to create a set because of this) were actually held as explained to a Tribunal 03/2021 and accepted by the ICO 06/05/2021:

Therefore please accept this as a request for an Internal Review and a formal complaint.

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

Information request
Our reference: 2104983
Your reference: [FOI #769205 email]
 
Dear Mr Swift
 
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
 
Further to my colleagues letter of 5th August 2021, we do not consider
that we have anything further to add and suggest that, if you are unhappy
with our handling of your request, you refer this matter to the ICO:
 
The Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Telephone: 0330 123 1113
Website: www.ico.org.uk
 
Yours sincerely
 
Helen Gilbert
Information Governance Officer
Law & Governance - Resources
 
Surrey County Council | Woodhatch Place | 11 Cockshot Hill | Reigate | RH2
8EF | Working from home | Contact Centre Tel no: 03456 009 009 (9am to
5pm, Monday to Friday, excluding bank holidays) | Email:
[email address]
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
Surrey County Council
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
Surrey County Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Surrey County
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.

Dear Surrey County Council,
I asked:
' I now seek all evidence upon which you rely to make this public accusation.' You have supplied none.

You have confirmed that Kier hold s the information therefore, for the purposes of the FoIA, the information is held on your behalf , as found by the ICO in respect of a recent Signed Decision Notice IC-48280-N2N3.

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

Kindly provide the information without further delay to avoid unnecessarily taxing the ICO's limited resources.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

to ICO 08/10/2021

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

ICO unhappy with Surrey's conduct:
https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/kier-h...