LOHAC Contractor Charges to Third Parties

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Transport for London should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Transport for London,

I am seeking the Contract Price Lists to TFL for

A. Ringway Jacobs
B. CVU
C. Kier
D. Conway Aecom

Insofar as they relate to:

1) IRU / ISU / AIW* Labour
2) IRU / ISU / AIW* vehicle
3) Ganger

*emergency incident attendance

I have noted that in addition to charges for attendance (and appearing to be a duplication, there being no evidence of additional resources following attendance by the above) a contractor bills for Traffic Management which appears to be a fixed sum added to the invoices without:

• evidence of this being engaged
• breakdown of the charges
• extra operatives or plant being evidenced

I ask to be provided, regarding 1 to 4 (above) inclusive, the charges (possibly included in the Contract Price List) TFL incurs for:

4) Traffic Management

Please provide the extract from the contract that details:

5) the ‘protection’ provided to Third parties; the section that limits the sum a contractor can charge Third Parties, prevents a contractor from charging substantially or unreasonably more than TfL are charged and
6) the basis upon which a contractor is permitted to charge TfL and a Third Party a minimum attendance charge of ‘x’ hours (with ‘x’ being 10 hours in one instance)
7) whether TfL is charged by reference to ‘x’ hours in any respect or whether the charge is for the hours worked.

Lastly, regarding IRU/ISU/AIW staff:

8) The shifts the staff are engaged for by each contractor i.e. whether 24/7 weekdays, stand-by roster of a weekend etc and
9) Whether TfL pay ‘multipliers’ on IRU / ISU staff rates for any out of ‘day’ hours (8am to 5pm) to any contractor

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift

 

Our Ref:         FOI-2447-1718

 

Thank you for your request received on 26 November 2017 asking for
information about LOHAC contractor charges to third parties.

 

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

 

Your request will be processed by TfL, the Greater London Authority and
its subsidiaries to provide you with a response in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.

 

A response will be sent to you by 27 December 2017. 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

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 Swift

 

Our Ref:         FOI-1909-1718 / FOI-2448-1718

 

Thank you for your requests received on 16 October and 26 November 2017
asking for information about Kier Highways and our LOHAC contractor
charges to third parties.

 

Your requests have been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can
confirm we do hold the information you require.

 

However, we are refusing your requests under section 14(2) of the Act as
it is a repeated request.

 

The ICO’s guidance includes a number of indicators that a public authority
may take into account when determining whether a request is vexatious. We
consider that the CMA requests display characteristics of two of these
indicators in that they show unreasonable persistence and impose an
unreasonable burden on the authority. Much of the information you have
requested in your two latest requests has previously been requested and
refused and we believe that were we to respond we would be repeating the
arguments that we have already clearly stated.

 

Please find our response below to the parts of your requests that we have
not previously answered:

 

2.    The Service Level Agreement (SLA) for Kier’s response time to
emergency incidents and the SLA for Kier to remedy / repair damage
following an emergency incident

3.    The coverage Kier are to provide for attending emergency incidents
i.e. whether this is 24/7 or otherwise

 

The Contractor shall:

i) Provide and operate an emergency call out service 24 hours per day,
every day from the Starting Date throughout the duration of the contract.
The required

response time shall be one hour for carriageways on Strategic Routes and
two hours for all other parts of the Network.

 

2.0.4.3 The response to defects identified as Cat 1 response requires the
defect to be either: a) temporarily repaired within 24 hours; b)
permanently repaired

within 24 hours; or c) made safe within 24 hours. The choice will depend
on two factors: a) the nature of the defect and whether the Contractor can
source the plant and materials required for completion of a temporary or
permanent repair within 24 hours; and b) an assessment of the overall
disruption caused to road users of each of the three options.

 

8.    The shifts the staff are engaged for by each contractor i.e. whether
24/7 weekdays, stand-by roster of a weekend etc

 

Control Room Staff                          24/7

Emergency Works Crews               24/7

Supervisors                                       7 days & Standby out of
hours.

Office Staff                                        Week day office hours
(07:30 to 17:30)

 

We apologise that we are unable to assist you on this occasion.

 

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

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

 

FOI-1909-1718

 

show quoted sections

Dear Gemma,

you response is of assistance and appreciated – it is good of you to address the identified aspects.

1. can you explain / define ‘call our service’; does this mean employed staff, working shifts or could this include operatives being at home, on standby and who could be called upon to attend work?

The stand-by roster suggests there is a difference between ‘24/7’ and ‘standby out of hours’

2. please define Cat 1

We appear to be referring to differing contracts. You state;

2.0.4.3 The response to defects identified as Cat 1 response requires the defect to be either:
a) temporarily repaired within 24 hours;
b) permanently repaired within 24 hours; or
c) made safe within 24 hours.

The choice will depend on two factors:

a) the nature of the defect and whether the Contractor can source the plant and materials required for completion of a temporary or
permanent repair within 24 hours; and
b) an assessment of the overall disruption caused to road users of each of the three options.

The contract we possess states:

Defects which are identified as Cat 1(ECO) require the deployment of an
emergency response unit. Within the stipulated response time, the
Contractor shall attend the defect, assess the situation and take appropriate
action. Appropriate action shall be the immediate commencement of either:

a) a temporary repair;
b) a permanent repair; or
c) the making safe of the defect.

The choice of the most appropriate action will depend on three
factors:
a) the nature of the defect and whether the emergency response unit
attending has the materials necessary to carry out an immediate repair;
b)
whether specialist advice is needed before deciding on the nature of a repair;
and
c) an assessment of the overall disruption caused to road users of each
of the three options. Further information about Emergency Call Out can be
found in Series 3200.

3. please provide a copy of the contract with the clauses.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift

 

Our Ref:         FOI-2618-1718

 

Thank you for your request received on 12 December 2017 asking for further
information about the LOHAC Contract.

 

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

 

Your request will be processed by TfL, the Greater London Authority and
its subsidiaries to provide you with a response in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.

 

A response will be sent to you by 15 January 2018. 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

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[3][TfL request email]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Transport for London,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Transport for London's handling of my FOI request 'LOHAC Contractor Charges to Third Parties'.

I am awaiting a response to mine of 13/12/2017

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift

IRV-140-1718

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received on 24 January 2018

You have stated that you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

The review will be conducted by an internal review panel in accordance with TfL’s Internal Review Procedure, which is available via the following URL:

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/internal-revie...

Every effort will be made to provide you with a response by 21 February 2018. However, if the review will not be completed by this date, we will contact you and notify you of the revised response date as soon as possible.

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Emma Flint
Principal Information Access Advisor
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift

 

IRV-140-1718

 

It is clear that in failing to provide you with a response within 20
working days, TfL has breached the requirements of section 10 of the FOI
Act, and on behalf of TfL, please accept our apologies for the
shortcomings in the handling of your request.

 

Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act advises that ‘a public
authority must comply with section 1 (the general right of access to
information held by public authorities) promptly and in any event not
later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt’. We
will always try to provide a response as quickly as we can and no later
than the 20 working day statutory time period set out by the Act. However
the FOI Case Management team are reliant upon the appropriate teams within
the organisation to provide the information sought within a timely manner.
Sometimes responses are delayed by necessary checks to ensure that the
response is both complete and accurate. This means that although over 90%
of FOI responses are sent on time, we are sometimes unable to always
respond promptly or, as in the case of your request, within the statutory
timeframe.

 

The matter has been escalated to the Head of Information Governance and we
will endeavour to provide you with a response as soon as possible. However
once you have received our response, we do not consider that this
necessarily represents the end of the internal review process. We consider
that it would be appropriate in the context of this request to offer you a
further internal review of the content of the response to FOI-2618-1718 if
you choose, even though you have already exercised your right to a review
in view of our failure to provide a timely response.

 

Therefore once you have received it, if you are not satisfied with the
final response provided to FOI-2618-1718 please contact [TfL request email].
Again the panel offer our sincere apologies for the unacceptable delay in
providing a response.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the internal review actions to date
(IRV-140-1718) you can refer the matter to the independent authority
responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Information Act, at the following
address:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

 

A complaint form is also available on the ICO’s website (www.ico.org.uk).

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Emma Flint

Principal Information Access Adviser

FOI Case Management Team

Transport for London

[TfL request email]

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you - I am seeking the schedule(s) of rates - which I anticipate will be in the following format:

http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/area-12...

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift

 

Our Ref:         FOI-4823-1718

 

Thank you for your requests received on 12 March 2018 asking for a copy of
our schedule of rates.

 

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

 

Your request will be processed by TfL, the Greater London Authority and
its subsidiaries to provide you with a response in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.

 

A response will be sent to you by 12 April 2018. 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

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[3][TfL request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

The information should be in my possession. You have (again) failed to comply with the time limits specified with the Act. I trust I will not be forced to until the time limit is reached and that every effort will be made to provide the information asap.
Please confirm an internal review is being undertaken
The following link details a schedule of rates
http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/highway...
Commercially sensitive is not an acceptable response.
Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

 

 

 

Dear Mr Swift

 

Our Ref:          FOI-2618-1718

 

Thank you for your request received on 12 December 2017 asking for further
information about the LOHAC Contract.

 

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can
confirm we do hold the information you require. You asked:

 

1.    can you explain / define ‘call our service’; does this mean employed
staff, working shifts or could this include operatives being at home, on
standby and who could be called upon to attend work?
The stand-by roster suggests there is a difference between ‘24/7’ and
‘standby out of hours’

 

The call out service includes items such as the control rooms that are
required to be permanently staffed, this would be termed as a 24/7
requirement. The items requiring a response within the one/two hour
period, depending on the nature of the response, would fall under the
category of a standby facility. The Employer has no requirement for this
to be staffed 24/7.

 

2.    Please define Cat 1

Please find the requested information below:

Defect Priority Description & Response
Categories Response
Emergency Call 1 A defect that poses a level of risk that requires
Out a response within 1 hour to attend the location
and commence appropriate action.
Category 1 2 A defect that poses a level of risk that requires
rectification by making safe within 24 hours and
permanently repaired within 28 days.
Category 2H 3 A defect that poses a level of risk that requires
it to be rectified within 7 days of the Project
Manager’s approval to proceed, by permanent
repair.
Category 2M 4 A defect that poses a level of risk that requires
it to be rectified within 28 days of the Project
Manager’s approval to proceed, by permanent
repair.

 

3.    Please provide a copy of the contract with the clauses.

 

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act we are not obliged to
provide this information as it is subject to a statutory exemption to the
right of access to information under section 43 (2) commercial interests.

 

In this instance the exemption has been applied as disclosure would be
likely to prejudice the commercial interests of us and our suppliers by
hindering their ability to operate competitively in the market place for
future contracts of this nature. Provision of this information would allow
rival bidders and potential clients to have an insight on their pricing
structure and manipulate this to hinder the ability of our contractors to
conduct their business as competitively as possible. LoHACs are not aware
of the rates of other LoHACs.

 

The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the public
interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. We
recognise the need for openness and transparency by public authorities,
but in this instance we feel that the balance of public interest lies in
favour of withholding the information to ensure that future tender
processes of this nature remain fair and effective for all parties.

 

As you are aware, the ICO have also issued a decision notice (FS50693918)
regarding the use of section 43(2) to withhold this information.

 

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable
to access it for some reason, please feel free to contact me.

 

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

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Please confirm, having reviewed the ICO decision at
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...
You intend to stand by the ‘commercial interest / sensitive’ exemption.
Additionally, contracts are regularly released by Public Authorities with many being on line.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift,

Our response to your request is clear in its outcome and has provided you with a link for further information on the basis for the exemption to which it relies, including details of your right to appeal.

We are under no obligation to repeatedly 'reiterate' responses but it is unclear whether you are 're-requesting' the same information (as a new request) or are asking for an internal review into the response you were issued with.

Please confirm and we will consider accordingly.

Yours sincerely

Lee Hill
Information Access Manager

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

As an internal request was requested 03/2018, it is now unclear whether you have undertaken this. Please confirm.
As for 'reiterating' - the decision I have cited is recent - was it known to you when you reached the outcome on this matter - if not, is it unreasonable for me to assist you in this manner?

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift,

 

You requested an internal review into the lateness of our reply to
FOI-2618-1718 on 24 January 2018 and a response to this internal review
was issued on 12 March 2018 (IRV-140-1718). This review acknowledged and
accepted our failure to respond within the statutory deadline and offered
you the option of requesting a further internal review of the content of
the response once it had been issued.

 

You then responded to this internal review response on the same day (12
March 2018) to state “Thank you - I am seeking the schedule(s) of rates -
which I anticipate will be in the following format:
[1]http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/area-12... and further “The
information should be in my possession. You have (again) failed to comply
with the time limits specified with the Act. I trust I will not be forced
to until the time limit is reached and that every effort will be made to
provide the information asap. Please confirm an internal review is being
undertaken The following link details a schedule of rates
[2]http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/highway... Commercially sensitive is
not an acceptable response”

 

As you will know, the exemption applied to your request for the schedule
of rates is currently to be considered at the First-Tier Tribunal, having
previously been upheld at our internal review stags and by the Information
Commissioner
([3]https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...
)

 

In any case, the above reference to “schedule of rates” does not appear to
relate to FOI-2618-1718 which, at the time of your emails above, remained
outstanding with an internal review having already concluded that we had
failed to issue a timely response.

 

The response to FOI-2618-1718 was issued to you on 3 May 2018 and I do not
have a record of any further requests for an internal review regarding the
content of this response. Therefore I am unclear on what basis you
requested a review of FOI-2618-1718 in March 2018 (having already been
provided with an internal review response on that day), and nor do we
appear to have a record of this review request. For the avoidance of
doubt, we do not have any open internal review requests in relation to
FOI-2618-1718.

 

We do not have any recorded information in relation to whether the
decision you have cited was known or considered and therefore are unable
to provide this.

 

Yours sincerely

Lee Hill

Information Access Manager

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Dear FOI,
I am seeking an internal review
As an internal request was requested 03/2018, it is now unclear whether you have undertaken this.
As for 'reiterating' - the decision I have cited is recent - was it known to you when you reached the outcome on this matter - if not, is it unreasonable for me to assist you in this manner?
You appear to believe the citing of a decision favors only TfL - the one I have cited is more recent and relates to the subject furthermore, to my knowledge it has not been appealed.

Yours,

Mr P Swift

Dear FOI,

please advise by when I can expect a response.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received on 18 May 2018

You have stated that you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

The review will be conducted by an internal review panel in accordance with TfL’s Internal Review Procedure, which is available via the following URL:

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/internal-revie...

Every effort will be made to provide you with a response by 18 June 2018. However, if the review will not be completed by this date, we will contact you and notify you of the revised response date as soon as possible.

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Emma Flint
Principal Information Access Advisor
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift

 

Our Ref: IRV-012-1819

 

I am contacting you in connection with your request for an internal review
of TfL’s response to your request for information under the Freedom of
Information (FOI) Act 2000 under case reference FOI-2618-1718. The review
has been carried out by a panel who were not involved in preparing the
original response.

 

The review panel noted that you did not specify the basis upon which you
would like to appeal the response, but were aware that a previous internal
review had already found TfL to be in breach of section 10(1) of the FOI
Act due to the time taken to respond to your request. Therefore, as the
requested information was provided in response to questions 1 and 2, for
the purposes of this review the panel have only considered the question
and answer provided in relation to Q3, namely “Please provide a copy of
the contract with the clauses”.

 

In response to this part of your request, you were issued with a refusal
notice in accordance with section 43(2). However, whilst the panel were
conducting the review into the handling of your request, it became
apparent that this aspect of your request appeared ambiguous and lacked
clarity. Your request does not specify which contract you are interested
in and, where you ask for “the contract” to be provided ‘with the
clauses’, it is not clear which ‘clauses’ you are referring to.

 

Section 16(1) of the FOI Act provides that a public authority should offer
advice and assistance to any person making an information request. The
Information Commissioner has published guidance on interpreting and
clarifying requests, where it is stated that public authorities must
interpret information requests objectively. They must avoid reading into
the request any meanings that are not clear from the wording. The guidance
provides that if the authority finds there is more than one objective
reading of the request then it must go back to the requester to ask for
clarification. It should not guess which interpretation is correct.

The panel’s view is that the original request was not clear, therefore TfL
was under an obligation under section 16(1) of the FOI Act to seek
clarification of the request. In failing to do so, the panel concluded
that TfL breached section 16(1) of the FOIA. As a consequence of this, the
panel did not go on to consider the application of section 43(2). Please
accept my apologies for the shortcomings in the handling of your request.

 

In light of these findings, you are now invited to resubmit your request
as clearly and concisely as possible to ensure that we are able to focus
specifically on the information you require.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this internal review, then it
is open to you to refer the matter to the independent authority
responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Information Act at the following
address.

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

 

A complaint form is also available on the ICO’s website
([1]www.ico.gov.uk).

 

Yours sincerely

 

Lee Hill

Information Access Manager

 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

I am seeking the contracts between TfL and the LOHAC contractors insofar as they relate to attendance and repairs following damage to property whether the bill is to be submitted by the contractor to the Council or the Third Party

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift,

Our Ref: FOI-0620-01819

Thank you for your further email. Before we can begin to process your request I require some clarification of the information you require.

Where you have asked for the LoHAC contracts "insofar as they relate to attendance and repairs following damage to property whether the bill is to be submitted by the contractor to the Council or the Third Party", could you please clarify whether you are seeking ONLY an extract of the LoHAC contracts that relate to 'attendance and repairs' of the nature you describe OR whether you are requesting a full copy of each LoHAC contract, that includes the information around attendance and repairs of this kind.

Please note that we will not be processing your request until we have received suitable clarification.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob
FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London

[TfL request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Gemma

can I suggest you liaise with Mr Hill your FoIA manager. We appear to be emailing at cross-purposes. I have today written to Mr Hill as below having consolidated my requests 03/05/2018.

Yours Sincerely

P. Swift

Thank you for your email of today.

Possibly this should be considered in conjunction with the below (03/05/2018) and my attached (pdf) response. My reply (attached) was sent 04/05/2018. I sought to assist, I condensed my requests, set them out in a single page (3 of the attached). I provided context. I stated I would place matters with the ICO on hold. You appeared not to appreciate the time I put into trying to be clear. You sought clarification, I supplied this 08/05/2018 - attached.

I had diarised for today; 20 working days (Tuesday 08/05/2018 to Friday 08/06/2018)) allowing for the Public Holiday and an extra day … to err on the side of caution. I have no response to the attached, no reference for the request.

I do however have more information about Kier Highways, I know for example, in the NW (Area 9) they charged Highway England under £30 for an operative and no uplift if that person works beyond 5pm. This is evidenced in an FoIA request to which a link can be found here: http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/area-9-... of course, Area 9 is not London … but we were told by Kier that they charge more there because they took over a shambles in Area 9 - elsewhere AIW’s are cheaper and this was evidenced by the charges - £73/hour in Area 9, in the West Country £70 / hour, the same in London.

We are also aware that between 07/2014 and 10/2015, Kier used a pricing methodology that saw all drivers, fleets and insurers overcharged. I have yet to understand what TfL intend to do about this but during that period Kier gave us a lot of information about AIW’s. Their process was to take the total annul cost and divide it by the number of AIW’s - 38 then. So this included TfL’s - we therefore can ascertain an average hourly rate from this historical data - about £30 / hour - see the time line links at http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/area-9-... which include the rates (2014 to late 2015) here http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/1153-th... - yet overnight, in 10/2015, the rate for an AIW to a third party more than doubled from £30 / hour to over £70 / hour … and multipliers started to appear. I uspect the increase to TfL was about inflationary.

So you will likely understand our concern when TfL permit Kier to charge £70.32 / hour to a driver, fleet or insurer in London. Furthermore, if the incident is after 5pm, a 1.5x multiplier i.e. £105 / hour and of a weekend £140 / hour - yet I suspect you are paying about £30 / hour. If, as we understand, the operatives work shifts and are not paid the uplifts, how would you describe the conduct?

Kier tell us the base rate of an AIW is £58.32 / hour … but they charge Highways England less than £30 / hour … so are they are operating at a loss or misrepresenting facts to us? What are you charged per hour … I anticipate it is much less than £58.32 / hour as my understanding is the going rate is about that … but I will compare to other LOHAC contractors who adopt differing processes. I wish to understand the charges to TfL. That it appears no one at TfL wishes to investigate but wish to keep the rate from me, my suspicion is that TfL are aware of the practice (how could they not be - it was apparently investigated following my meeting with TfL) and permit it. That is to say, it appears TfL failed to protect those they serve and are enabling them to be overcharged. It would seem drivers, fleets and insurers are subsidising road maintenance in London.

My request (attached) is intended to bring the issue together to enable you to understand and address them. When is this to occur?

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift,

Further to my email which has been sent to your personal email account, in the absence of a clear request for recorded information we are unable to process your request.

We will therefore not be engaging further on this request until you have provided the clarification being sought.

Yours sincerely

Lee Hill
Information Access Manager

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Hill

Please do not write to me personally in respect of a WDTK matter; it is confusing. I question why this particular FoIA request is being progressed and the lack of understanding. My interest relates to repairs and that TfL appear to be permitting a dual pricing system following damage to roadside property, such as barriers; 'mates rates' to the Council higher rates to drivers, fleets and insurers. How the information is held, how you refer to operatives, is unknown to me.

I shall combine an p lace the requests here for future ease of response and monitoring but to address the above, an extract of the LoHAC contracts that relate to 'attendance and repairs' of the nature i describe

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift

Our Ref: FOI-0620-1819

Thank you for clarifying your request for information on 8 June 2018 asking for information about the LOHAC contracts relating to attendance and repairs following damage to property.

Your request will be processed by TfL, the Greater London Authority and its subsidiaries to provide you with a response in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.

A response will be sent to you by 6 July 2018. 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 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transpar... to see if this helps you.

We will publish anonymised versions of requests and responses on the 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
FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London

[TfL request email]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Swift

 

Our Ref:         FOI-0620-1819

 

Thank you for clarifying your request for information on 8 June 2018
asking for information about the LoHAC contracts relating to attendance
and repairs following damage to property.

 

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

 

The LoHAC does not provide detailed billing information. The relevant
clause concerning the contractor seeking recovery for repairs is Clause
2.24.3 which mentions the following, “the Contractor will be expected to
supplement payment through the lump sum by recovering costs from the
relevant 3^rd party for his own benefit.”

 

Please see an extract of the contract below:

 

2.24 3rd Party Damage

 

2.24.1 Subject to the Employer selecting service 24 – 3rd Party Damage –
reactive works – the Contractor shall permanently repair 3rd party damage
to Employer assets within the Affected Property and be reimbursed through
a lump sum where all of the following apply:

 

·         the damage was not the result of a fatal accident;

·         the damage was not caused by the Employer or anyone acting
directly on his behalf; and

·         the estimated cost of permanent repair is not more than £10,000
based on the contract Price List.

 

2.24.2 Clause 2.24.1 supersedes the value limits placed on reactive
activities reimbursed as a lump sum detailed in clause 2.0.3.4.

 

2.24.3 In the above circumstances, the Contractor will be expected to
supplement payment through the lump sum by recovering costs from the
relevant 3^rd party for his own benefit.

 

2.24.4 Where a response is required which falls outside of the scope of
clause 2.24.1, then within the lump sum the Contractor shall provide the
Employer with such information and photographs as may be required to
facilitate recovery of costs by the Employer from the relevant 3rd party,
their insurer, or the Motorists’ Insurance Bureau where the 3rd party was
an uninsured driver. Repair of the 3rd party damage may then be instructed
by the Employer as a Task.

 

2.24.5 3rd party damage includes, but is not limited to: damage caused to
street furniture, etc by road users; spillages (including items falling
from vehicles); theft and attempted theft; vandalism; fly posting and
abandoned vehicles. 3^rd party damage does not include normal wear and
tear, graffiti or damage to footway paving. Permanent repair may involve
clearing, cleaning, repairing or replacement on a like-for-like basis to
restore the lifespan or safe performance of the asset.

 

If this is not the information you are looking for please feel free to
contact me.

 

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

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you. With regard to:
2.24.3 In the above circumstances, the Contractor will be expected to
supplement payment through the lump sum by recovering costs from the
relevant 3rd party for his own benefit.
Please;
1. Advise the definition and basis of ‘costs’. It appears that the ‘cost’ of something is just that; the base level as opposed to enhanced or uplifted by profit.
2. Explain the effect the lumpsum and ‘payment through the lump sum’ has upon Third Party, sub-threshold (under £10,000) claims.
I wish to understand what costs TfL acknowledge can be sought in respect of such matter, to what costs the contract referrers. I understand proceedings are issued in the name of TfL.
For example,
3. is the contractor to use the agreed (with TfL) schedule of costs and
a. if so, where are these, how can a Third Party confirm the rates are correct
b. if not, why not; how are drivers, fleets and insurers provided the same protection as TfL from overstatement. I am seeking the information and decision making relating to this.
I also ask to be provided
4. All information TfL possess about the routine practice of inflating claims made against drivers, fleets and insurers
A contractor, Kier Highways routinely employ Corclaim, a business name of Shakespeare Martineau LLP, to pursue claims they are making in the name of a Public Authority such as TfL of Highways England.
‘The practice of inflating costs to make a profit when pursuing claims arising from non-fault accidents has been given the green light by the Court of Appeal and some fleet operators may choose to follow their example.’ http://corclaim.co.uk/index.php?id=159 - Coles v Hetherton - Subrogation ruling creates a moral dilemma for fleet operators
30/01/2014

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift

 

Our Ref:         FOI-1297-1819

 

Thank you for your request received on 8 August 2018 asking for
information about LoHAC costs.

 

Your request will be processed by TfL, the Greater London Authority and
its subsidiaries to provide you with a response in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.

 

A response will be sent to you by 6 September 2018. 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

Dear FOI,

thank you

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Swift

 

Our Ref:          FOI-1297-1819

 

Thank you for your request received on 8 August 2018 asking for
information about LoHAC costs.

 

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

 

Unfortunately, to provide the information you have requested would exceed
the ‘appropriate limit’ of £450 set by the Freedom of Information
(Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.

 

Under section 12 of the FOI Act, we are not obliged to comply with a
request if we estimate that the cost of determining whether we hold the
information, locating and retrieving it and extracting it from other
information would exceed the appropriate limit. This is calculated at £25
per hour for every hour spent on the activities described.

 

We have estimated that it would cost over £450 to provide a response to
your current request. This is because it is estimated that it would take
over 18 working hours to retrieve and compile the information you have
requested.

 

The final part of your request asks for ‘all information TfL possess about
the routine practice of inflating claims made against drivers, fleets and
insurers’. The request is very broad and would potentially capture
information held across several departments of the organisation and, as no
timeframe has been provided, would require us to search through around
seven years’ worth of information. The only way to sufficiently answer
such a broad request would be to conduct a company wide, remote email
search using specific, identifying keywords and then review the results.
Those keywords would need to be very broad, such as ‘inflating claims’ or
‘claims’, which would undoubtedly capture a significant volume of
irrelevant material. Furthermore, it is also difficult to conclude the
point at which our search could be concluded to a point where we can be
satisfied that all relevant information has been caught.

 

To help bring the cost of responding to your request within the £450
limit, you may wish to consider narrowing its scope so that we can more
easily locate, retrieve and extract the information you are seeking.

 

If you want to refine your request or make a Freedom of Information Act
request in future, please bear in mind that the Freedom of Information Act
allows you to request recorded information held by Transport for London.
You should identify the information that you want as clearly and concisely
as you can, specifying the types of document that you are looking for. You
might also consider limiting your request to a particular period of time,
geographical area or specific departments of TfL.

 

Although your request can take the form of a question, rather than a
request for specific documents, TfL does not have to answer your question
if it would require the creation of new information or the provision of a
judgement, explanation, advice or opinion that was not already recorded at
the time of your request.

 

Please note that we will not be taking further action until we receive
your revised request.

 

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

 

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]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

As you appear to be separating the request I have presented each as follows:

Contractor Lumpsum & TP Charges
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

TfL & Contractor(s) Inflating Costs to Make a Profit
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...

Yours,

Mr P Swift

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Swift,

 

Please be aware that we will be unable to process your two latest
requests, which are a split of the request processed under case ref
FOI-1297-1819, as it would exceed the cost limit. Under Regulation 5(2) of
the Data Protection and Freedom of Information (Appropriate Limits and
Fees) Regulations 2004, we are permitted to aggregate requests where they
relate to any extent to the same or similar information and this
aggregation applies to any requests that are received within a sixty
working day period, including individuals considered to be acting in
concert.

 

We suggest that, before submitting future requests, you consider which
information is of the highest priority to make best use of the processing
time within the FOI Act described in our previous refusal notice.
Similarly, please be aware that requests that are to any extent similar
that we have identified as being submitted by individuals or others
working in concert will be considered together for the purposes of
calculating the cost limit. Therefore, we recommend submitting single,
complete requests for information rather than splitting the request as
this will not circumvent the cost limit.

 

Having considered the explanation above, could you please confirm whether
you would like us to go ahead with an internal review into the application
of the cost limit for FOI-1297-1819. For the avoidance of doubt, please be
aware that we will not be working on this matter until we hear further.

 

Yours sincerely

Lee Hill

Information Access Manager

 

 

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/