PHV Operators Licence
Dear Cheshire West and Chester Council,
In October 2016 you issued a PHV Operators licence to a company named PCS Events Limited.
Could you please answer the following questions.
1, What is the address of their operating Base?
2, Whose name was on the original application?
3, Whose name is on the licence now?
Yours faithfully,
Mr Robson
RE: Your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Case Reference: 101004768610
Dear Mr Robson
Thank you for your email.
It will be treated as a request within the meaning of the Act: this means that we will send you a full response within 20 working days, either supplying you with the information which you want, or explaining to you why we cannot supply it.
If we need any further clarification or there is any problem we will be in touch.
In the meantime if you wish to discuss this further please contact FOI WEST
. It would be helpful if you could quote the log number.
Yours sincerely
FOI Unit
Solutions Team
Cheshire West and Chester Council
Dear Mr Robson
Thank you for your request for information of 4 May 2017 which has been
logged as 4768610 and has been dealt with under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000. We confirm that Cheshire West and Chester Council hold
information relating to your request.
For the purpose of clarity your request has been reproduced below:
In October 2016 you issued a PHV Operators licence to a company named PCS
Events Limited.
Could you please answer the following questions.
1, What is the address of their operating Base?
The Council considers that the requested information is exempt from
disclosure under subsection 40 (2) which states that personal information
of third parties attracts an absolute exemption from disclosure and that
such requests must be dealt with under the Data Protection Act 1998 ( the
“DPA”).
1. The requested information is the personal data of a third party,
the address held by the Council is not one that is available in the public
domain through Companies House or through any other source. This address
may be a residential address that constitutes the personal data of a
living individual.
The definition of personal data is taken from Section 1 of the DPA and the
personal information requested identifies the personal address of a living
individual.
The Council considers that disclosure will be unfair and unreasonable as
the requested information held in relation to the individual was not
intended for wider public disclosure:
· The information requested relates to the personal data of a
living individual;
· Disclosure would lead to the identification of the individuals
concerned;
· Disclosure would place personal information relating to the
individual into the public domain in circumstances where the individual
has had no opportunity to comment on this disclosure;
· The information held was not intended for wider disclosure;
· The individuals would have a reasonable expectation that the
information would be confidential;
As the disclosure would be unfair and unreasonable, the Council does not
have to consider any conditions in Schedule 2 DPA and the request for
disclosure of personal information is refused. However, for completeness,
the provisions of the DPA are set out below with an explanation of how the
DPA applies.
2. The Data Protection Act - the Council considers that disclosure will
contravene the first data protection principle, which states that
“personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully, and in particular,
shall not be processed unless –
(a) At least one of the conditions in schedule 2 is met, and
(b) In the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the
conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.”
No condition in schedule 2 is met. Schedule 3 does not apply as there is
no sensitive data involved.
For the reasons outlined above, the Council refuses your request for
information where living individuals are identified.
2, Whose name was on the original application?
The name on the original operating licence PCS Events Limited
3, Whose name is on the licence now?
The name on the operating licence is still PCS Events Limited
We trust this answers your enquiry.
The Council considers that your request has been answered in full by
either confirming that information is not held, providing you with the
information requested, or explaining why any information has been withheld
and the reasons for any redaction. Where applicable, the Council has
also told you the reasons for the delay in responding to your request.
If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been
handled you can request a review by writing to the Information Disclosures
Team within 40 working days from the date of the Council’s response.
You are entitled to a review by the Council if:
· You are dissatisfied with the Council’s explanation of why the
application was not dealt with within the 20 working day time limit.
· All the information requested is not being disclosed and you
have not received an explanation why some information is not being
disclosed.
· A reason for the disclosures under the request being refused is
not received.
· You consider that exemptions have been wrongly applied, and/or
· You consider that a fee has been wrongly applied.
Please set out your grounds for seeking a review together with what
specific part of your request those grounds apply to and the outcome you
are seeking. The Council reserves the right to ask you for clarification
of the grounds for your review request if the grounds are not clear, and
to delay commencing the review if such grounds are not provided.
The Information Disclosures Team can be contacted by email via:
[1][Cheshire West and Chester Council request email] or at the following
address:
Information Governance
Cheshire West and Chester Council
HQ
58 Nicholas Street
Chester
CH1 2NP
The Information Disclosures Team will acknowledge a request for an
internal review within 5 working days and complete the review as soon as
possible and no later than 40 working days from receipt of the request.
More information about the Council’s internal review process can be found
via:
[2]http://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk...
If you remain dissatisfied following the outcome of your review, you have
a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
The Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Telephone: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45
Website: [3]www.ico.org.uk
There is no charge for making an appeal.
Yours sincerely
Information Governance
Cheshire West and Chester Council
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[cheshire%20west%20and%20chester%20council%20request%20email]
2. http://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk...
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/
Dear Cheshire West and Chester Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Cheshire West and Chester Council's handling of my FOI request 'PHV Operators Licence'.
Q1 Your assertion that section 40 (2) applies in this case cannot be correct. A private hire company’s office is a matter of public record. The reason that this is so is to allow complete transparency for users of their services and should anyone wish to write to them to complain (for example) they have an address to correspond to. I could send you or the ICO numerous examples of other councils publicly displaying the addresses of private hire companies that are licensed at residential addresses should the need arise.
Your own PHV policy Appendix C states at 2.0 Telephones and staff.
2.1 The operator shall provide adequate telephone facilities and staff to provide an efficient private hire service to the public.
By their own admission PCS employ 185 people & run 150 vehicles further undermining your assertion that they are running their operation from a private residential address.
Again in Appendix C 4.1 you outline the complaints procedure, and make reference to written complaints, so following your guidelines where would a person wishing to complain about PCS write to? The public need to know the address.
Appendix C 5.0 Premises where private hire bookings are taken
5.3 What authority would an authorised officer have to enter someone’s private house?
If after addressing all these issues you still maintain your stance can you answer this question?
Has planning permission been sought or granted for PCS to run a 150 vehicle private hire operation from a residential address in your council’s area?
Q2 To clarify; the name I am seeking was the applicants PERSONAL name at the time of the original application. I am well aware that PCS Events Ltd is the named company on the licence.
Q3 The name I am seeking is the name of the PERSON on the licence at today’s date. Again I am well aware that PCS Events Ltd is the named company on the licence.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
Yours faithfully,
Mr.M.Robson
Dear Mr Robson
Thank you for your email of 5 June 2017 requesting an Internal Review for case reference 4678610.
You will receive an outcome within 40 working days.
Ruth Winson
Information Governance
Dear FOI Cheshire West & Chester Council.
You said I would receive a response within 40 days which by any yardstick is a ridiculous amount of time to respond to such a simple request.
It is now 44 working days since you made that claim.
Can you let me have the details I have asked for ASAP.
In actual fact it is now 66 of your working days since I made my original request.
Yours sincerely,
Mr.M.Robson
Dear Mr Robinson
We sincerely apologise for the delay in responding to your request and any inconvenience this has caused. The council is still reviewing the requested information and can confirm you will receive a full response no later than 11th August 2017.
Your Sincerely
Customer Relations and Information Governance
Dear FOI Chester West,
The name is Robson not Robinson.
There really is no legitimate excuse why this request could not of been dealt with sooner.
Lets hope you keep to your word, this time.
Yours sincerely,
Mr.M.Robson
Dear Mr Robson
Re: Request for Information (RFI) - Internal Review Request
Requester: Mr M Robson
RFI legislation: Freedom of Information (FOIA)
Case reference: 4768610
Request date: 4 May 2017
Statutory due date: 2 June 2017
Response date: 1 June 2017
Internal review request date: 5 June 2017
Internal review request reason: Application of exemption
You made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Cheshire West and
Chester Council for the following recorded information:
In October 2016 you issued a PHV Operators licence to a company named PCS
Events Limited.
Could you please answer the following questions.
1, What is the address of their operating Base?
2, Whose name was on the original application?
3, Whose name is on the licence now?
You made your request on 4 May 2017. A response was sent to you on 2 June
2017. According to my investigation into your request for information
(RFI) our case records show that the response was sent within the
statutory timeframe. You submitted a request for internal review on 5
June 2017.
As the Senior Manager, responsible for the function of disclosure of
information through the FOIA, EIR and DPA SAR, I am writing to confirm
that your request for a review of your FOI response has now been carried
out. I apologise for the delay in responding to you while the Council
reconsidered its position in relation to this request. The outcome of the
review is that the application of the exemption for personal data was
incorrectly applied and the information that the Council applied the
exemption to should have been disclosed. Furthermore, your additional
clarification of points 2 and 3 has resulted in the following amended
response:
In October 2016 you issued a PHV Operators licence to a company named PCS
Events Limited.
Could you please answer the following questions.
1, What is the address of their operating Base?
Westleigh, Heath Lane, Little Leigh, Northwich, CW84RW.
2, Whose name was on the original application?
(To clarify; the name I am seeking was the applicants PERSONAL name at the
time of the original application. I am well aware that PCS Events Ltd is
the named company on the licence.)
The application was made by PCS events limited and they are the licenced
entity. The Authority does require an accountable person to be named in
order to undertake a basic criminal records check through the DBS. For a
limited company this would be the Managing Director as recorded on
companies house. The name of the Managing Director at the time of the
original application, until February 2017, was Paul Aslwanian. This
information is public record on Companies House but not on the Authorities
public register.
3, Whose name is on the licence now?
(The name I am seeking is the name of the PERSON on the licence at today’s
date. Again I am well aware that PCS Events Ltd is the named company on
the licence.)
On 17 February 2017 the Authority were informed of a new Managing
Director, Anthony Slater.
Please accept my apologies for your time and trouble in having to request
an internal review. I can assure you that your request was answered in
good faith based on the information available at the time, but I
acknowledge that on this occasion we made a mistake in our response.
If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the Review, or you remain
dissatisfied with the way the Council conducted the original request or
the Review, you may complain to the Information Commissioner at:
The Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Tel: 0856 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45
Website: [1]www.ico.org.uk
Yours sincerely
Michelle Cross
Customer Relations and Information Senior Manager
Cheshire West and Chester Council
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
Dear FOI Cheshire West,
Thank you for your reply.
I do not accept that a simple error was made in denying my original request. I say this because anybody with a basic understanding of what I was asking for would know I should have been given the information, the fact that the person who made the decision would be from your licensing department, so consequently would know this leaves me with the belief that it was a deliberate attempt to keep this information out of the public domain.
For what reason? I can probably guess why but don't intend to make it public here except to say the actions of CWAC in this request and the length of time it has taken do nothing to assuage my suspicions of the way they have conducted themselves in licensing PCS Events. A company it is worth placing on record has seen its main people go to prison for fraud and the current director has had two operating licences revoked during his short tenure.
In conclusion thank you for confirming that PCS Events base of operations (bookings taken & dispatched) are at Little Leigh, Northwich.
Yours sincerely,
Mr.M.Robson
N.Siddle left an annotation ()
CWaC, whilst admitting their error(s), really haven't given a satisfactory explanation. Given that we know (from the Court cases) that this firm had senior individuals who were involved in criminal activity, one will always be left with a suspicion that corruption was involved in the award of this contract unless the Council is open about its tendering/contract awarding.
I am confused by the response:- “The Authority does require an accountable person to be named in order to undertake a basic criminal records check through the DBS. For a limited company this would be the Managing Director as recorded on companies’ house. The name of the Managing Director at the time of the original application, until February 2017, was Paul Aslwanian. This information is public record on Companies House but not on the Authorities public register.” If they did not know/ had no record of the MD at the time, how could they have done a DBS check? As far as I am aware, DBS checks can only be requested for named individuals. There is a tortuous use of language in their statement (e.g. ‘would be’ rather than ‘was’) which I assume is to try and provide cover in the event of further enquiry.
There is something very wrong about this. I suggest that you refer it to the ICO. They will take a long time to investigate but it could just ‘put the brakes’ on the awarding of any more contracts without due diligence and oversight.
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
N.Siddle left an annotation ()
This seems an extraordinary response in that it appears to imply that the Council have been corresponding with a company through a personal address rather than their official 'correspondence' address.
From publicly available Companies House info (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/compa...), it appears that at the time of the issuance of the licence, the Director (since resigned) was using the Company HQ in Runcorn as the correspondence address - this presumably is also their 'operating base'. Given that this is on an industrial estate, it makes the claim that it could be used to identify a residential address seem thin. As can be seen from the some of the other listed data, sometimes a clearly residential address is in the public domain where it has been nominated as a correspondence address.