Dear Sir,

Please provide, for the period 27th February 2006 to date, the following information:

1 The aggregate value of revenue received by CRT and BW arising from licence fees for "end of garden moorings"

2 The number of applications made to BW and CRT for "end-of-garden moorings"

3 The aggregate fees paid to CRT amd BW for applicatiosn made Item (2) above

4 The number of
(a) grants
(b) refusals
(c) withdrawals
(d) other outcomes,
of the applications Item (2) above.

For the avoidance of doubt this is a requisition under the Freedon of Information Act.

Yours faithfully,
Nick Brown

Dear Ms Young

I note your response to me of the 26th March 2013 in relation to my FoI requisition served on CRT of 26th February 2013.

I note that you have provided some information in responded to my requisition. However I observe that the figure of aggregate revenue from EoG moorings has been reduced by 64% in the y/e April 2013, which sounds unlikely. It follows that the data follows the accounting year of CRT (ending 31st December) and thus the figure for 2012/13 is actually for the period 1st January 2013 - 22nd March 2013, ie one third of an average years' revenue. Therefore please would you
clarify why the period is stated as "2012-13". Please clarify the dates for which this data applies.

I also note that CRT states that the cost of retrieval of the balance of information exceeds the statutory limit of budget for disclosure and therefore you are entitled to not make disclosure.

I note that where such a situation arises you are obliged to
(1) state what the cost will be for retrieval, in excess of the statutory limit and invite me to pay that cost; and
(2) assist me by working with me to narrow the scope of the search in order, if possible, to reduce the cost and in particular to endeavour reduce the cost below the statutory threshold.

I note that you have not complied with Item (1).

I note that you have provided some assistance to me in
relation to Item (2) but I argue that this does not even approach the obligation on CRT to "work with me to seek to reduce the budget for retrieval".

I also respond as follows:

Q1 (aggregate fees). I observe that the revenue earned from EoG moorings forms part of CRTs revenue stream. Therefore if nothing else than for the purposes of audit CRT has an obligation to record this information and have it its disposal for that purpose. I note that you have been able to reproduce the totals for y/e 2011 to ytd 2013. Further as the EoG applications are processed by the Boat Licensing Team in Leeds using a licensing management system, which is accessible for the purposes of enforcement, it follows that the appropriate management report of EoG applications may be run at will. I therefore see no reason why the reproduction of data for y/e 2006 to y/e 2009 should not be anything other than trivial and therefore of de minimus cost to reproduce. I therefore do not accept your response to me.

Q2 (count of EoG applications). The same observations as those laid out in relation to Q1 above apply.

Q3 (application fees). I will be satisfied to be informed of the per-application fee for the years prior to those for which the current fee applies (which is accessible on the application form). In other words I am seeking a search of (or reproduction of) the history of the application forms going back to 2006. On the basis that this is within the window covered by the Statute of Limitations it follows that for compliance reasons CRT is obliged to retain this history in its archive and for the archive to be readily accessible. Thus the cost of retrieval is de minimus. I therefore do not accept your response to me.

Q4 (number of grants, refusals, withdrawals and other outcomes). I observe that you have reproduced the number of grants for the past three years. My arguments in relation to Q1 also apply and therefore I do not accept your response in relation to the previous 5 years. I also observe that as Navigation Authority, CRT is obligated for compliance reasons to record such decisions and for those decisions to be readily accessible not least of which for the purposes of Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act. It follows that the BLT licensing system must be able to reproduce the data relating to applications and grants by way of management report. It follows that the cost of retrieval is de minimus. I therefore do not accept your response to me.

In view of my comments I request an internal review of your response.

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 sincerely
Nick Brown

Dear Ms Young

Further to my letter of 5th April 2013 I observe that the SAP Guidance Notes document entitled "Recording Moorings in SAP" June 2008 identifies 12 mooring types as follows:
L1, L2, L2b, L, L3b, L4, L5, L6, L8, L9 and L10

I observe that:
Category L2 is defined as End of Garden Moorings - fee paid; and
Category L2b is defined as End of Garden Moorings - no fee paid

It follows that by running the appropriate management report in the SAP system means that you can obtain a dump of L2 and L2b moorings on interrogation.

It follows that your observation that the cost of obtaining such a report (such charge being limited to the administrative cost, in this instance running a management report which CRT does every day) exceeds the cost threshold value must be false.

Please account for why CRT has provided this misleading response.

I have already requested an internal review of this matter. Please add this letter to the papers for that internal review.

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 sincerely
Nick Brown

Dear Information Request,

I requested an internal review of my Freedom of Information requisition regarding Revenue, grants and refusals of end-of-garden moorings on 8 April 2013. It is now 11 July. More than 40 working days has elapsed since I requested the internal review. If you do not carry out an internal review within seven days I will make a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Brown