Dear Department for Transport,

I read with interest the news reports of an award of a £13m contract for the supply of ferry services by the company Seaborne Freight.

I understand the DoT conducted a due diligence assessment of the company before making the award.

Could you disclose to me;-

1) The Company Number of Seaborne Freight (so that I can cross check against my own assessment of the company's financial status)
2) The full contract
3) The total value of the contract, and payment milestones
4) The amounts of any payments already made to Seaborne Freight
5) Any correspondence items exchanged with the directors of Seaborne Freight following their successful contract award
6) The make/model/name of the vessels they are proposing to supply

Yours faithfully,
P John

Dear Department for Transport,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for Transport's handling of my FOI request 'Seaborne Freight'.

I believe your redactions and application of exemptions excessive. There should be a presumption in favour of disclosure, not in favour of concealment.

In particular, the email correspondence is clearly incomplete, omitting all items sent from the department to Seaborne Freight. You were asked to provide "Any correspondence items exchanged with the directors of Seaborne Freight following their successful contract award"; that would include all correspondence items (both ordinary mail, email, SMS, and other written form) sent to AND from your department.

In the case of the email dated 23 December 2018 08:23 I am disappointed to note you have concealed all details of the recipients, leaving only the details of Mr Ben Sharp.

The email dated 28 December 2018 16:59 refers to a number of attached documents which you have not provided.

The email dated 30 December 2018 12:56 refers to an earlier message with the words "What are your thoughts on answering the below?" without inclusion of the preceding item.

Throughout, the recipient lists have been excessively obscured. I would like to see details of all directors, all senior civil service staff, and all ministers included in the To/CC list of all correspondence items. Including those originating from the department, and in other written formats besides email.

I also asked you to disclose "The total value of the contract, and payment milestones".

You told me; "There are no payment milestones in this contract as the company will only be paid monthly in arrears for any service". That is simply false; in a statement by The Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP he said "the Seaborne contract is ***also subject to the achievement of a range of key milestones*** including in relation to finalising funding and vessel chartering agreements".
Please disclose the full range of additional key milestones applicable to Seaborne Freight, as referred to by Mr Grayling in his statement dated 7 January 2019.

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

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear Department for Transport,

concerning my request (reference number P0017030) please could you confirm that you have taken note that my request for review stated;

"In particular, the email correspondence is clearly incomplete, omitting all items sent from the department to Seaborne Freight. You were asked to provide "Any correspondence items exchanged with the directors of Seaborne Freight following their successful contract award"; that would include all correspondence items (both ordinary mail, email, SMS, and other written form) sent to AND from your department.

In the case of the email dated 23 December 2018 08:23 I am disappointed to note you have concealed all details of the recipients, leaving only the details of Mr Ben Sharp.

The email dated 28 December 2018 16:59 refers to a number of attached documents which you have not provided.

The email dated 30 December 2018 12:56 refers to an earlier message with the words "What are your thoughts on answering the below?" without inclusion of the preceding item.

Throughout, the recipient lists have been excessively obscured. I would like to see details of all directors, all senior civil service staff, and all ministers included in the To/CC list of all correspondence items. Including those originating from the department, and in other written formats besides email."

I expect to receive all the correspondence items requested in your reply.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear FOI-ADVICE-TEAM-DFT,

further to my request ("Seaborne Freight"), noting the early termination of the contract with Seaborne Freight.

Please will you now reconsider disclosure of following items of my request for disclosure of;
2) The full contract
3) The total value of the contract, and payment milestones
4) The amounts of any payments already made to Seaborne Freight

Yours sincerely,

P. John

Dear Mr Maloney

thank you for your response to my FoI internal review request.

I am disappointed that you continue to withhold information about Seaborne Freight.

Withholding the names of civil servants because they fear abuse is a dangerous precedent to set. Civil servants should not be able to avoid accountability for their role in decision making... especially so if the decision making appears to be unlawful. For example, as Joanna Cherry MP has suggested, the unlawful application of regulation 32 to procure ferry services from a ferry company with no ferries (which Chris Grayling has claimed was based on advice given by his civil servants).

That you should choose to withhold all correspondence from the department to a supplier - given this level of controversy - is quite extraordinary. There should be a presumption in favour of disclosure, to withhold all of that correspondence is surprising to say the least.

Presently, I am concerned- given the lack of information you have provided - DoT are concealing something quite ugly from the public.And I would be grateful for more transparency & openness.

What else would you expect me to conclude from this decision?

Yours sincerely,

P. John