Request for order under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

Jared Miles made this Freedom of Information request to Transport for London

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Transport for London,

I would like to request:
1. The Order that placed a 50mph speed limit in effect on the A40 WESTBOUND (previously National Speed Limit) up until the 16th of September 2012.
2. Details of when and where notice of this order was published.

I have searched online and the closest reference I can find is listed in the London Gazette here: http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/6... but only relates to the EASTBOUND carriageway. I have not found any equivalent notice for the westbound carriageway.

I have also found reference to http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tr... and while it is helpful it does not contain the information I'm looking for.

Yours faithfully,

Emrul Islam

Dear Transport for London,

I intended to further detail that I am interested specifically in the Westbound section of the A40 beginning near the Polish War Memorial.

Yours faithfully,

Jared Miles

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Islam
 
TfL Ref: FOI-0980-1213
 
Thank you for your email received by Transport for London (TfL) on 19
September 2012 asking for information about a speed limit on the A40.
 
Your request will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act and TfL’s information access policy. 
 
A response will be provided to you by 17 October 2012.
 
In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Eva Rozmahelova
FOI Case Officer
 
FOI Case Management Team
Corporate Governance Directorate
General Counsel
Transport for London
 

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    Freedom of Information request Request for order under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.txt

    1K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Miles

 

I believe you refer to your earlier request FOI-0980-1213 (attached)
signed by a different name.

 

For clarity, can you please confirm under which name we should log your
request.  

 

Yours sincerely

 

Eva Rozmahelova

FOI Case Officer

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Please use the name 'Emrul Islam' for request handling purposes.

Yours sincerely,

Jared Miles

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Miles
 
In accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and
TfL’s information access policy, to be able to deal with your request we
will need to be provided with your real name as we have reason to believe
that Emrul Islam is a pseudonym.
 
Section 8 (1)(b) of the FOI Act indicates that the real name of the
applicant should be used when requesting information and not any other
name, for example, a pseudonym.
 
We will not be able to begin dealing with your request until this matter
is resolved.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Eva Rozmahelova
FOI Case officer
 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

My real name is 'Emrul Islam', it is not a pseudonym. If you do not proceed with the request I shall seek an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Jared Miles

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 'Request for order under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984'.

Owing to a mixup when I registered on the whatdotheyknow.com website my name was not presented correctly. Your case officer asked what name to use and I provided my real name, 'Emrul Islam' (which corresponds with the name on a related email I sent to [email address]).

I then received a response stating 'we have reason to believe
that Emrul Islam is a pseudonym.'. This is incorrect, your case officer had NO reason to believe that the name I provided is a pseudonym and it is offensive to refer to my birth name as a 'pseudonym'.

I ask that you continue processing my FOIA request without your staff spending public money attempting to find excuses not to proceed with an absolutely valid request.

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

Yours faithfully,

Emrul Islam

FOI, Transport for London

Our ref: IRV-085-1213

Dear Mr Islam

Request for internal review

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received by Transport for London (TfL) on 19 September 2012.

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://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/f...

Every effort will be made to provide you with a response by 17 October 2012. 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 do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Eva Rozmahelova
FOI Case Officer
E-mail: [TfL request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Eva,

Thank you for your prompt reply and handling of my request. Should you require evidence of my name I am prepared to provide a copy of a utility bill - please provide a fax number should this be required.

Oherwise, I'm hopeful you'll be able to complete my request.

Yours sincerely,

Emrul Islam

FOI, Transport for London

8 Attachments

Dear Mr Islam

 

TfL Ref: FOI-0980-1213

 

Thank you for your email received by Transport for London (TfL) on 19
September 2012 asking for information about the speed limit on the A40.

 

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Environmental Information Regulations and TfL’s information access
policy.  I can confirm TfL does hold the information you require. You
asked for:

 

1.    The Order that placed a 50mph speed limit in effect on the A40
WESTBOUND (previously National Speed Limit) up until the 16th of September
2012.

 

The speed limits were changed in the area in early July 2012.  Please find
the attached Orders, Notices and Statement of Reasons for the proposal.

 

2.    Details of when and where notice of this order was published.

 

The 360 Temporary Order was advertised on the dates of the notices in the
Uxbridge & Hillingdon Leader. The 315 Order was advertised on the dates of
the notices in both the Uxbridge & Hillingdon Leader and the London
Gazette. This is in line with Statutory Procedures.

 

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

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would
like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Eva Rozmahelova

FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team

Corporate Governance Directorate

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

show quoted sections

Sloane Peter, Transport for London

26 October 2012

 

Our reference: IRV-085-1213

 

Dear Mr Islam

 

The internal review of Transport for London’s (TfL) handling of your
Freedom of Information (FOI) request for information relating to Road
Traffic Orders on the A40 (Westbound), has now been completed. I am sorry
about the delay in providing you with this response.

 

As you will be aware, the basis for your complaint was the email from the
FOI team stating that there was reason to believe that you were using a
pseudonym, which you stated was offensive to you.

 

I appreciate that this would be a matter of concern to you and I am sorry
about any offence taken. However, I can assure you that any offence was
not deliberate and arose from a genuine and legitimate confusion
concerning your name. This arose particularly in connection with the
response you sent on 19 September, in which you indicated that you wished
all correspondence to be addressed to Emrul Islam for ‘request handling
purposes’ and yet the email was still signed Jared Miles, as follows:

 

show quoted sections