Dear Highways England Company Limited,

1. I ask to be provided, for Area 10, since the inception of the contract in 2012, the above-threshold (£10,000) rates which you have most recently referred to as a ‘Pricing schedule’ and/or ‘schedule of costs components’ but which also have been referred by various employees as:

• DCP (‘damage to Crown property’) Rates
• Defined Costs
• Nominal Rates
• Base Rates

For sake of clarity, it is the schedule of agreed tariffs which are used by your contractors in order to present ‘above threshold’ claims to Highways England for settlement under the terms of their contractual appointment to undertake such repairs to the public highway.

If, with regard to the contract the above terms are not synonymous,

2. please explain the differences, with reference to exact calculations which lead from one descriptive term to another.

By way of background, In 11/2018, a HE employee stated that the ‘DCP’ rates, being those list of rates used to calculate claims as presented to HE for direct payment, were not commercially sensitive.

3. Please advise what rates for above-threshold claims are held and describe same.

4. Are rates for incidents where a recovery against a Third Party (driver, fleet or insurer) is identified in any way subsidized or reduced by the lump-sum payment BBMM receives?

a. If yes, what is that subsidy / reduction, how is this calculated and applied.

5. Are rates for Third Part or culprit -unidentified incidents in any way subsidised / reduced by the lump-sum payment BBMM receives?

a. If yes, what is the subsidy / reduction, how is this calculated and applied.

6. Is any aspect of emergency incident attendance or repair covered by the lump-sum payment and if so?

a. what aspects

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Highways England, Highways England Company Limited

This is an automated response:

 

Thank you for your email to Highways England.

 

If you’re reporting a real time issue which requires immediate attention
please call the Customer Contact Centre on 0300 123 5000. 

 

A map of the roads for which we are responsible can be found here
[1]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk....
If the road you’re interested in isn’t on this map it will fall under the
jurisdiction of the local authority.  You can find details of local
authorities using the search facility on the gov.uk website
at: [2]https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council

 

If your email does relate to an issue on Highways England's network it
will be passed to the relevant team within Highways England and they will
respond to you within a maximum of 15 working days.

 

If you’ve made a request under the Freedom of Information Act we will
respond to you within a maximum of 20 working days. Your request will be
dealt with in line with government guidelines:
[3]https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...

 

Please be advised that emails may be monitored for training and quality
assurance purposes.

 

To help us improve our service please click [4]here to complete a short
survey.

 

Kind regards

 

Highways England Customer Contact Centre.

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[5]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[6][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
2. https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
3. https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
4. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/HECCC
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
6. mailto:[Highways England request email]

Peter Anderson left an annotation ()

Good questions. Semantics is what they play at. What irks me about this whole situation is that HE repeatedly say that the reasonable pricing of their repairs is a matter for the Courts to determine, and at the same time refuse to say what their contractors have agreed to charge them, which is the only real data available in a monopoly situation to determine what a reasonable price consists.

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

Dear Highways England Company Limited,

It may account for why every above-threshold Kier matter we have seen, paid for by HE, has been overstated ...

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Dear Highways England Company Limited,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Highways England Company Limited's handling of my FOI request 'The Schedule of Damage to Crown Property Rates – Area 10'.

You have not provided the information I sought within 20 working days nor sought an extension. You are in breach of the law.

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Highways England, Highways England Company Limited

This is an automated response:

 

Thank you for your email to Highways England.

 

If you’re reporting a real time issue which requires immediate attention
please call the Customer Contact Centre on 0300 123 5000. 

 

A map of the roads for which we are responsible can be found here
[1]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk....
If the road you’re interested in isn’t on this map it will fall under the
jurisdiction of the local authority.  You can find details of local
authorities using the search facility on the gov.uk website
at: [2]https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council

 

If your email does relate to an issue on Highways England's network it
will be passed to the relevant team within Highways England and they will
respond to you within a maximum of 15 working days.

 

If you’ve made a request under the Freedom of Information Act we will
respond to you within a maximum of 20 working days. Your request will be
dealt with in line with government guidelines:
[3]https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...

 

Please be advised that emails may be monitored for training and quality
assurance purposes.

 

To help us improve our service please click [4]here to complete a short
survey.

 

Kind regards

 

Highways England Customer Contact Centre.

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[5]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[6][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
2. https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
3. https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
4. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/HECCC
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
6. mailto:[Highways England request email]

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

More about the Area 10 rates can be found here:
http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/2018-ar...

TPC HAIL, Highways England Company Limited

1 Attachment

Mr Swift

 

Please find a response to your latest FOI query.

 

TPC HAIL

FBS Green Claims
Highways England | The Cube | 199 Wharfside Street | Birmingham | B1 1RN
Web: [1]https://highwaysengland.co.uk

 

 

 

 

 

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[3][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. https://highwaysengland.co.uk/
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
3. mailto:[Highways England request email]

Dear Highways England Company Limited,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Highways England Company Limited's handling of my FOI request 'The Schedule of Damage to Crown Property Rates – Area 10'.

You have stated:

DCP ('damage to Crown property') Rates – the ASC contract does not contain a schedule that is used for DCP rates. Highways England does not hold information in the form of a set of rates that is used for third party claims.

The recent Information Commissioner’s Office decision supports our decision to respond under section 1 FOIA that this information is not held.

The recent ICO Decision is subject to appeal. Your stance, with regard to Area 10 is contradicted by your contractor.

I am seeking the schedule of rates used by BBMM to charge Highways England above threshold.

I understand, with larger repairs (over £10,000) Highways England claims against the tortfeasor (an individual who commits a wrongful act) and claims the repair cost calculated by reference to rates agreed with BBMM for works over £10,000. Those rates are not the CECA Dayworks rates.

It is the £10,000+ rates, the negotiated prescribed rates, I wish to be provided, the rates agreed with BBMM (by Highways England) I am seeking. These have been withheld.

There is schedule of Defined Costs if it is not within the contract, it is elsewhere and it is this I ask to be provided.

You have yet to advise how, in the absence of a schedule, rates are agreed to be charged, how consistent figures are apportioned over a period with no suggestion these vary from incident to incident save that some repairs take longer than others and use greater resources. This does not affect the charge (hourly) rate apportioned to the asset.

The definition of ‘defined cost’ is an irrelevance. .

How is each incident is treated on its own merits in line with the relevant contract; I have asked about rates in Area 10. How is a rate calculated and applied?

The term ‘DCP rates’ is all encompassing and specific to ‘damage to Crown property’ where claims are made against Third Parties. The term has been used consistently.

On the one hand you refer to the Tribunal at which your employee, Mr Carney gave evidence, on the other you appear not to know who this was or what was said.

The tribunal was talking about the TENDER documents from the various subcontractors. The contracts themselves were not within the undisclosed materials the Tribunal was looking at. The Tribunal accepted that TENDER documents of ASC Rates are commercially sensitive. We all agree that. The contract itself, which contains rates set out in the pricing schedule, has NOT been determined by the First Tier Tribunal to be commercially sensitive. It was not before them.

I agree, the DCP Rates, ‘costs included in the cost breakdown document or invoice to the insurance company are not commercially sensitive’. However, whilst they are obviously disclosed on a case by case basis they are taken from a schedule hence they are consistent. To be clear, they are rates charged consistently to Highways England; my interest is above-threshold matters, those presented to Highway England.

Regarding ‘3’, I asked please advise what rates for above-threshold claims are held and describe same. You replied:

The response to question 1 applies equally to below and above threshold claims.

I have not asked for rates in respect of below threshold matters. I cite the above statement as a further example Highways England has taken a blanket approach to my requests about rates. That it matters not what I ask, if there is reference to rates, the concerted response is to say ‘do not exist’, ‘not held’ and to supply hackneyed distractions in the form of Tribunal references and definitions.

Apparently you received 175 requests & review between 2013 and 2018 for rate related information. No one was told ‘do not exist’ until post-11/2018 when Mr Carney stated ‘DCP Rates are not commercially sensitive’.

Please provide me all the information you were supplied in respect of this response; that question 1 applies to below threshold claims. It does not.

With regard to the lump-sum subsidy, I note this relates to third party claims with an UNKNOWN or UNIDENTIFIED culprit:

a) There is no relationship between above threshold (£10,000) DCP charges and the lumpsum payment.

b) These are not in part subsidised by the lump sum paid under the agreement.

c) the rates charged by BBMM to Highways England are not discounted (or subsidised) as a consequence of that larger agreement i.e. works being done within a substantial commercial arrangement.

That is to say, they are not artificial but stand alone as representing the price of repair. This clarification is appreciated

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Highways England, Highways England Company Limited

This is an automated response:

 

Thank you for your email to Highways England.

 

If you’re reporting a real time issue which requires immediate attention
please call the Customer Contact Centre on 0300 123 5000. 

 

A map of the roads for which we are responsible can be found here
[1]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk....
If the road you’re interested in isn’t on this map it will fall under the
jurisdiction of the local authority.  You can find details of local
authorities using the search facility on the gov.uk website
at: [2]https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council

 

If your email does relate to an issue on Highways England's network it
will be passed to the relevant team within Highways England and they will
respond to you within a maximum of 15 working days.

 

If you’ve made a request under the Freedom of Information Act we will
respond to you within a maximum of 20 working days. Your request will be
dealt with in line with government guidelines:
[3]https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...

 

Please be advised that emails may be monitored for training and quality
assurance purposes.

 

To help us improve our service please click [4]here to complete a short
survey.

 

Kind regards

 

Highways England Customer Contact Centre.

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[5]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[6][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
2. https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
3. https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
4. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/HECCC
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
6. mailto:[Highways England request email]

FOI Advice, Highways England Company Limited

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Swift

 

Please find attached the internal review reference: 769,993 of your
Freedom of Information request reference: 769,305.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Jonathan Drysdale

Freedom of Information Officer (HE)

Information & Technology

Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD

Web: [1]http://highwaysengland.co.uk

 

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[3][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. http://highwaysengland.co.uk/
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
3. mailto:[Highways England request email]

Dear FOI Advice,
I have requested an internal review .
Thank you for your email of today's date.
I initially submitted this request on 22 February 2019. The response was due by 22 March 2019. The final response to this request was provided to me on 15 April 2019. This is outside of the statutory 20 working day deadline.
Yours sincerely,
Mr P Swift

Dear FOI Advice,

Thank you for your reply of 12/04/2019, your request for clarification and the invitation to submit an internal review.

Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

I asked to be provided, for Area 10, since the inception of the contract in 2012

the above-threshold (£10,000) rates which you have most recently referred to as a 'Pricing schedule' and/or 'schedule of costs components' but which also have been referred by various employees as:

o DCP ('damage to Crown property') Rates
o Defined Costs
o Nominal Rates
o Base Rates

I anticipate there existing a schedule of rates as these have bene consistently charged above threshold to you by your contractor. At the every least, your contractor holds a set of these rates

1. Please provide all information held by your contractor.

I asked in respect of 'above threshold' claims to Highways England for settlement under the terms of their contractual appointment to undertake such repairs to the public highway.

This question does not refer to a number of different sets of information. I have no interest in the
Asset Support Contract (ASC) rates tendered during the procurement process. I have bene absolutely clear; I am seeking rates relating to DCP, not pre-planned works. Your (continued) reference to ASC Rates and that these rates have been confirmed by the First Tier Tribunal (EA/2018/0104) to be commercially sensitive and therefore under section 43 FOIA will not be disclosed, is unnecessary, hackneyed and appears intended to divert form the real issue; that you are withholding rates I am entitled to by distraction.

DCP ('damage to Crown property') Rates – the ASC contract contains a schedule that is used for DCP rates.

You state Highways England does not hold information in the form of a set of rates that is used for third party claims. I have not asked for this and again question your response.

The recent Information Commissioner’s Office decision may support your our decision to respond under section 1 FOIA that this information is not held. However, this is the subject to Tribunal appeal and is contradicted by your contractor who has:

• Withheld the rates from us, said they will not release the rates i.e. they exists
• Appointed lawyers who have also withheld the rates i.e. they exists
• Informed a Court the rates exist
• Advised the Court that the rates are subsidised by the lump sum they are paid each month. Confirmation of this can be found at:

http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/15-02-2...

Whilst you state you do not hold Schedules of DCP rates, in name or function, we and a Judge have been advised otherwise. Indeed, your response to this FoIA has contradicted the subsidy these DCP Rates (the schedule of costs) is said to attract; on the one hand a Court is told the rates you are charged are subsidised by the lump sum payment, on the other you state they are not. I have attached your relevant responses at 3 to 6 inclusive below which should be considered in relation to the Summary Judgement (above) which was provided to me by your contractor in support of their claims.

2. Please explain the contradictions; provide all information in support of the statements being made by you and your contractor

The above Judgement was a claim pursued in the name of Highways England

I accept each incident is treated on its own merits. However, they are treated consistently with regard to pricing

3. Who holds the schedule; you, your contractor or another?

Whoever, please confirm they will be asked to provide a copy as clearly this information is held for your benefit, on your behalf, is pertinent to what you pay form the public purse and you require said schedule to determine the accuracy of invoices presented. It also appears you wish to possess the copy, expect to possess same

I have only asked about Area 10, the prevailing contract in that Area in line with the relevant contract.

You state:
Defined Costs - The term ‘Defined Cost’ refers to a definition in the contract, the contract does not contain a schedule of Defined Costs. The Defined Cost is calculated in accordance with the definition. This is based on actual costs incurred by the supplier and there is not pre-set schedule of defined cost, or other schedule that is used.

Obviously, the actual defined cost for incident response and repair work resulting from damage by third parties is calculated after the event depending on the work that needs doing. However, this is calculated in accordance with the defined cost definition (which you cite) which references

a) the schedule of costs components,
b) which specifies specific costs the contractor is allowed to include and
c) the cost of them.

4. I ask to be provided the above

It is noticeable recent responses from Highways England make no reference to ‘c’ above

Also, when responding, please:

5. Explain the calculation you believe is occurring

It is apparent you are of the impression ‘defined costs’ is a term, as opposed to a figure. I am asking to be provided the calculation behind the scenes, that results in the
Sums you are (were) charged. I remind you, these are seen to be constant in claims presented to us i.e. they do not fluctuate form day to day

The term ‘DCP Rates’ is simple, clear and concise; rates for damage to Crown property. It matters not whether they are a formal term, the fact is they plainly describe the rates I am seeking. In response to your request for the source of the term, this was Patrick Carney of Highways England. The terms fits the charges and the point is, they are not, as Highways England have responded in respect of 175 request reviews between 2013 and 07/2018, commercially sensitive. Highways england have repeatedly (175 times) withheld DCP rates over a number of areas; further evidence they clearly exist.

I will await the responses to the above before deciding whether to present to the ICO. Possibly the additional information (above) will enable a reconsideration of what is being conveyed to you, the serious contradictions and illogical nature of the situation.

Yours sincerely

P. Swift

Previous responses re lump-sum:

3. Are rates for incidents where a recovery against a Third Party (driver, fleet or insurer) is identified in any way subsidized or reduced by the lump-sum payment BBMM receives?

a. If yes, what is that subsidy / reduction, how is this calculated and applied.

Third Party Claims are covered in part by the Lump Sum Duties. Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald (BBMM) receive a contribution towards elements of its running cost through the Lump Sum. The value of the Lump Sum was tendered as part of BBMM bid for Area 10 based on a number of assumptions including the number of third party claims with an unknown culprit.

5. Are rates for Third Part or culprit -unidentified incidents in any way subsidised / reduced by the lump-sum payment BBMM receives?

a. If yes, what is the subsidy / reduction, how is this calculated and applied.

The Lump Sum, as tendered by BBMM during the procurement process, includes an assessment for incidents where a culprit is not identified. A subsidy/reduction is not applied.

6. Is any aspect of emergency incident attendance or repair covered by the lump-sum payment and if so?

a. what aspects

An element of emergency incident attendance and repair is covered by the Lump Sum in respect of incidents caused by unknown culprits.

If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you may ask for an internal review within 2 months of the date of this response for Freedom of Information requests and within 40 days for Environmental Information Regulations requests.

Dear FOI Advice,

To assist you locate the DCP Rates for Area 10, it possible you have TUPE’d over the BBMM employee / witness providing information to the Court in 2018:

15/02/2018 Derby County Court BBMM for Highways England
Case No: C08YP765
Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE GODSMARK QC
Claimant Highways England Company Limited
Hearing dates: 15th February 2018

Extracts from the Judge’s draft Judgement evidencing the existence of rate sin Area 10 are as follows:

1. During the oral evidence before me it became clear that in fact there are two regimes in operation to recover damages in respect of damaged highway furniture. Where the costs are under £10,000 then BBMM undertake the repairs and, under the authority of clause 87.2 of its contract with Highways England, recovers damages from the tortfeasor. However with larger repairs (over £10,000) Highways England claims against the tortfeasor and claims the repair cost calculated by reference to rates agreed with BBMM for works over £10,000. Those rates are not the CECA Dayworks rates.

2. BBMM argue that the CECA rates are the best way of calculating a repair cost on relatively small repairs such as the one in this case where the figure is less than £10,000. That figure is significant because BBMM do have agreed rates with Highways England for repairs where the total is over £10,000.

3. He (Mr Ellis) was asked why the same rates which were used in pricing repairs of over £10,000 could not be used. His response was that the £10,000 + rates were negotiated prescribed rates which were in part subsidised by the lump sum paid under the agreement.

4. I also accept from Mr Ellis that the rates charged by BBMM to Highways England in respect of such repairs are influenced by the larger picture of works being done within a substantial commercial arrangement. To that extent the rates charged by BBMM to Highways England are discounted (or subsidised) as a consequence of that larger agreement.

5. I also accept Mr Ellis’s evidence that the £10,000 + repair rates are subsidised in part by the lump sum payment in the sense that I have set out above. They are to that extent artificial in that they do not stand alone as representing the price of repair.

6. They are in effect preferential rates which BBMM has negotiated with Highways England. BBMM is not obliged to charge those rates to anyone else.

7. In order to reject the use of CECA Dayworks rates in pricing this repair I would have to have some alternative measure to apply. The only one suggested is the £10,000 + repair regime rates and I have already accepted that they are artificial in that they are partly subsidised by the lump sum. No-one can suggest anything else.

8. An alternative measure based on the rates agreed between BBMM and Highways England for more extensive (over £10,000) repairs is subject to the criticism that those rates are subsidised by the lump sum element of the contract between Highways England and BBMM.

Further information can be located at http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/area-10...

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear FOI Advice,

concerning yours of 12 April 2019 inviting Internal Review, I submitted the request 16/04/2019.

Please advise by when I can expect to receive the response.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI Advice, Highways England Company Limited

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Swift,

Thank you for your e-mail.

The internal review process employed by Highways England in respect of the Freedom of Information Act is that we aim to provide a response within 20 working days of receipt. However, this is not always possible and ICO guidelines do allow up to 40 working days to provide a response. Of course we endeavour to provide our review response within 20 working days

In relation to this request, I can confirm that we did receive your request for internal review 769,305 on 16 April 2019 and it was logged as such with an initial 20 working day response date of 17 May 2019. However, following receipt of your e-mail dated 25 April 2019 (attached) which was taken as a clarification of what you required reviewing a new 20 working day response date of 24 May 2019 was logged.

We will therefore endeavour to provide the internal review response to you by 24 May 2019 but please be aware that this might not be possible and that the response may be provided after that date.

Kind Regards

Jonathan Drysdale
Freedom of Information Officer (HE)
Information & Technology
Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD
Web: http://highwaysengland.co.uk

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Advice,

Thank you for your email and explanation. I look forward to receiving the review on or before 24/05/2019.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear FOI Advice,

Please advise wen I can anticipate receiving the information sought.

The National Audit Office (NAO), your auditors, have clarified the situation with regard to ASC's, such as Areas 9 and 10:

'a schedule of rates is included, and this should be used as the basis for the calculation of costs for claims above and below the £10,000 threshold'

for more information, see:
http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/he-vs-n...

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear FOI Advice,

Please advise when I can anticipate receiving the information sought.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI Advice, Highways England Company Limited

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Swift,

 

Please accept my apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Please
find attached the internal review reference: 770,246 of your Freedom of
Information request reference 769,305.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Jonathan Drysdale

Freedom of Information Officer (HE)

Information & Technology

Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD

Tel: +44 (0) 300 4701536
Web: [1]http://highwaysengland.co.uk

 

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[3][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. http://highwaysengland.co.uk/
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
3. mailto:[Highways England request email]

Dear FOI Advice,

with regard to the point, your responses (copied below):

1. Please provide all information held by your contractor. You have not supplied the information held by BBMM.

Please provide this information along with a copy of your request and their response

2. The Judgement to which I referred you was provided by your contractor. It is the document upon which BBMM have been and are relying. It appears BBMM could be approached for the information (and see ‘1’ above).

Why has this not occurred?
When will it occur?

3. An issue relating to Area rates is subject to appeal. This request stands on its own

Were it not, I feel sure you would have cited duplicity or repetition to exempt a reply. The request differs from others in that it deals with a set of rates stated to a Judge to exist and for above threshold only.

Please explain your stance given, as advised, your contractor states the rates exist.  As at '2' above:

have you approached your contractor for the information?
Please provide a copy of the approach and their reply

4. There is and must be more to add. A definition is one thing, the ‘numbers’ are another. You have specifically referred to ‘costs’ and it must surely be obvious that having agreed a definition, to output a charge, to apply the definition, there must be numbers. It appears Highways England are being deliberately obtuse in their hackneyed referral to the Defined Cost 'definition’. I am aware of the definition, which provides a meaning, I am seeking the applied figures.  The act of defining should make something definite, distinct, or clear.  Your response appears intended to obfuscate and do anything but make matters transparent.

Please explain the reference to 'costs' and how the definition is applied.
Contractors have been invoicing using the methodology since 2012, at the commencement of any contract the compilation of a rate charged was clearly based on something; what?

This is clarified, progressed in point 5:

5. Please explain the calculation, form where the figures are obtained and how the output (sum) is arrived at.

If you are refusing to do so, as appears to be the case, please confirm asap.

I note you are awaiting the Judgement. This needs to be considered in relation to the following:

it unequivocally identifies the existence of above threshold rates, a schedule of costs. This flies in the face of your 'no schedule’ reply
It states these are subsidized by the monthly lump sum. However a recent FoIA response states there is no such subsidy.

The Judge was informed of the subsidy seemingly to stop the schedule being used for comparison purposes.

A simple means by which to address the issue would be to take it up with Mr Ellis who I suspect has been TUPED over on or about 01/04/2019; he may well be in your employ. Mr Ellis has also withheld the rates from us i.e. they exist, he will just not hand them over.

Mr Ellis is referred to in the draft Judgement which can be found here http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/15-02-2...

Statement, in support of the existence of rates can be found here http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/sin-sai...

Yours sincerely,
Mr P Swift

Dear FOI Advice,

To assist you locate the information and to and convey the existence of a schedule of rates, the following relates to an analysis of Area 10 VRMs (vehicle registration marks). Included are:

1. the VRM
2. the date of the VRM association with an incident
3. the charge rates on the specific date

Highways England has stated that it 'does not hold Schedules of DCP rates. Each incident is treated on its own merits in line with the relevant contract. The reasonable repair costs are built up from Defined Costs using the Schedule of Cost Components (as defined in the contract) plus fees and third party overheads, where appropriate. In other words effectively, the actual cost of undertaking the individual third party repair work.'

This suggests a build up on a case by case basis, using costs specific to a day, possibly week or month.

In respect of this request history, the following has been stated by Highways England:

'Defined Costs - The term ‘Defined Cost’ refers to a definition in the contract, the contract does not contain a schedule of Defined Costs. The Defined Cost is calculated in accordance with the definition. This is based on actual costs incurred by the supplier and there is not pre-set schedule of defined cost, or other schedule that is used.' 15/04/2019 above https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...

The rates below for various vehicles evidence the existence of a schedule of rates. BBMM are clearly charging by use of a schedule, a pre-set schedule, a set of defined (fixed) costs.

More succinctly put 'For the most part, repair costs are built up on a case by case basis using defined or reasonable costs, plus third party overheads or a fee where appropriate'.

It stands to reason, each incident, repair and in turn claim, being unique, costs are built up on a case by case basis. However, to date, in the absence of a schedule of rates, you have failed to explain the source of the specific charges being used. It is apparent these are held by your contractor as they are used regularly (see below) for in excess of a year. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine how this information was not 'held on behalf of' or 'for ' Highways England given it is the very schedule of rates the contractor is using to bill you and in turn, your are seeking to recover from Third Parties.

If you are unable to find the rates, they can be obtained from your contractor.

The rates below are all for Area 10, BBMM and over threshold (£10k) i.e. billed to Highways England.

You will note that whilst many months apart, the rates in EVERY case are identical.

BF65ZJV
11/01/2018 £3.78
31/01/2018 £3.78
BG68CWT
01/11/2018 £15.01
17/12/2018 £15.01
FD16SNU
26/02/2017 £10.51
17/10/2018 £10.51
FE62VKM
29/01/2017 £16.41
07/12/2018 £16.41
FG59RJJ
21/10/2017 £15.01
08/12/2018 £15.01
FH13RMV
26/12/2017 £26.76
20/12/2018 £26.76
FJ13XVX
16/05/2017 £26.76
23/12/2018 £26.76
HN16CUO
16/01/2017 £3.78
27/03/2017 £3.78
HV66VGF
15/12/2017 £3.78
16/11/2018 £3.78
HV66VGM
07/06/2017 £3.78
16/10/2017 £3.78
HV66VHA
05/07/2017 £3.78
22/09/2018 £3.78
HX16OGR
20/01/2017 £3.78
19/12/2018 £3.78
HX65XXB
12/09/2018 £19.47
23/12/2018 £19.47
LN15KMK
30/01/2017 £19.06
31/10/2018 £19.06
MA17UXJ
08/06/2018 £15.01
20/10/2018 £15.01
PK59XOX
10/04/2018 £26.76
11/04/2018 £26.76
PN14SYX
16/02/2017 £16.41
10/10/2017 £16.41
RK17NMU
23/01/2018 £19.47
03/04/2018 £19.47
VX09WGW
28/11/2017 £26.76
09/01/2018 £26.76
VX09WGZ
19/12/2017 £26.76
08/11/2018 £26.76
WU13GMY
21/03/2017 £15.01
19/04/2018 £15.01
WU13GNK
27/06/2017 £15.01
05/07/2018 £15.01
WX18NBB
10/04/2018 £15.01
22/11/2018 £15.01
WX63KXT
16/06/2017 £7.95
06/07/2017 £7.95
WX63KXV
11/01/2017 £7.95
15/10/2017 £7.95
YE65YGH
13/11/2017 £15.01
06/03/2018 £15.01
YK61ZTT
04/11/2017 £15.01
21/12/2018 £15.01

A further means by which to obtain the rates would be to approach Mr Ellis (see 07/05/2019 email at this request page on WDTK https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...

Mr Ellis has unequivocally been cited as explaining the existence of a set of rates to Judge Godsmark*. For more, see: http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/sin-sai... . However, Mr Ellis also stated the rates were subsidized by the monthly lump payment BBMM received from Highways England. Your 15/04/2019 entry (in the history of this request on WDTK) contradicts this. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...

* I understand you are seeking a copy of Judge Godsmark's judgement, C08YP765 Highways England vs. Mr Hughes Hearing dates: 15th February 2018 and trust I will be provided the copy you are supplied and an explanation for the contradictions i.e. all information relating to the concerns raised.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear Mr Drysdale,

Please advise when I can anticipate receiving the information sought.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI Advice, Highways England Company Limited

Dear Mr Swift

 

Thank you for your request for information about the schedule of damage to
crown property rates dated 4 and 5 June 2019 I am dealing with it under
the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000/Environmental Information
Regulations 2004.

 

I do acknowledge that you asked similar questions in your request for
internal review/clarification e-mail on 25 April, however I approached
these with respect questions that you asked in your original request in
February 2019 and the answers that you received in response to these
questions and this what my internal review response was based around. I
have now come to the realisation that I should have treated your original
request for an internal review on 16 April 2019 as such and that your
follow-up on the 25 April, whilst related to and using the same
WhatDoTheyKnow e-mail address, should have logged as a new request and
allocated to the relevant department/team at Highways England to address
away from the review. This was down to an error/confusion on my part and I
ask that you please accept my apologies for this.

 

As stated above we are now treating the e-mails that you sent on 4 and 5
June 2019, which are similar/provided in addition to those received on 25
April, as a new request and they have been allocated to the relevant team
for a response. I appreciate that in your 4 June e-mail at Q5 that you ask
for a response ASAP, however to avoid further confusion as to what has
been answered at what point in relation to these e-mails, I ask that you
please wait for a complete response to all of the questions raised i.e.
the final FOI response in which this question will be addressed.

 

The due date for issuing a response is 2^nd July 2019.

 

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please
remember to quote reference number 770,722 in any future communications.

 

Please note that the above does not affect your right to apply to the
Information Commissioner if you are not satisfied with IR 770,246.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Jonathan Drysdale

Freedom of Information Officer (HE)

Information & Technology

Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD

Web: [1]http://highwaysengland.co.uk

 

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[3][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. http://highwaysengland.co.uk/
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
3. mailto:[Highways England request email]

Dear FOI Advice,

whist I do not understand the response:

'I do acknowledge that you asked similar questions in your request for
internal review/clarification e-mail on 25 April, however I approached
these with respect questions that you asked in your original request in
February 2019 and the answers that you received in response to these
questions and this what my internal review response was based around.'

I am appreciate of your consideration and approach. Unless anything pertinent should arise to assist locating the information, I will remain silent. However, I shall not add to this request.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Andrew Wright left an annotation ()

is this Kier too?

Dear FOI Advice,

No Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald. But linked in that it is an ASC in respect of which there is a schedule of rates - yet Highways England say there is not - as with all ASC's

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Dear Highways England Company Limited,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Highways England Company Limited's handling of my FOI request 'The Schedule of Damage to Crown Property Rates – Area 10'.

The due date for issuing a response was 2^nd July 2019.

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Highways England, Highways England Company Limited

This is an automated response:

 

Thank you for your email to Highways England.

 

If you’re reporting a real time issue which requires immediate attention
please call the Customer Contact Centre on 0300 123 5000. 

 

A map of the roads for which we are responsible can be found here
[1]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk....
If the road you’re interested in isn’t on this map it will fall under the
jurisdiction of the local authority.  You can find details of local
authorities using the search facility on the gov.uk website
at: [2]https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council

 

If your email does relate to an issue on Highways England's network it
will be passed to the relevant team within Highways England and they will
respond to you within a maximum of 15 working days.

 

If you’ve made a request under the Freedom of Information Act we will
respond to you within a maximum of 20 working days. Your request will be
dealt with in line with government guidelines:
[3]https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...

 

Please be advised that emails may be monitored for training and quality
assurance purposes.

 

To help us improve our service please click [4]here to complete a short
survey.

 

Kind regards

 

Highways England Customer Contact Centre.

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[5]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[6][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
2. https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
3. https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
4. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/HECCC
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
6. mailto:[Highways England request email]

Dear Mr Dysdale,
You wrote,
The due date for issuing a response is 2^nd July 2019.
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please
remember to quote reference number 770,722 in any future communications.
I have yet to receive the information. Please provide an update.
Yours faithfully,
Mr P Swift

Highways England, Highways England Company Limited

This is an automated response:

 

Thank you for your email to Highways England.

 

If you’re reporting a real time issue which requires immediate attention
please call the Customer Contact Centre on 0300 123 5000. 

 

A map of the roads for which we are responsible can be found here
[1]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk....
If the road you’re interested in isn’t on this map it will fall under the
jurisdiction of the local authority.  You can find details of local
authorities using the search facility on the gov.uk website
at: [2]https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council

 

If your email does relate to an issue on Highways England's network it
will be passed to the relevant team within Highways England and they will
respond to you within a maximum of 15 working days.

 

If you’ve made a request under the Freedom of Information Act we will
respond to you within a maximum of 20 working days. Your request will be
dealt with in line with government guidelines:
[3]https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...

 

Please be advised that emails may be monitored for training and quality
assurance purposes.

 

To help us improve our service please click [4]here to complete a short
survey.

 

Kind regards

 

Highways England Customer Contact Centre.

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[5]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[6][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
2. https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
3. https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
4. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/HECCC
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
6. mailto:[Highways England request email]

FOI Advice, Highways England Company Limited

Dear Mr P Swift,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Please accept my apologies that you have not yet received a response to your request. We will follow this up with the relevant team to ensure that you receive a response as soon as possible.

Yours Sincerely

Jonathan Drysdale
Freedom of Information Officer (HE)
Information & Technology
Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD
Web: http://highwaysengland.co.uk

show quoted sections

Andrew Wright left an annotation ()

So they got the rates, just tryin to work out how to keep them from you? If a Judge is told there's rates and there ain't who'd you blame?

Dear Mr Drysdale

I have not yet received a response to your request. When can I expect this?

Yours Sincerely

Mr P Swift

Dear FOI Advice,
I have not yet received a response to your request. When can I expect this?
Yours
Mr P Swift

Dear FOI Advice,

I have not yet received a response to your request. When can I expect this?

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

FOI Advice, Highways England Company Limited

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Swift,

 

Please find attached our response to your FOI request and please accept
our apologies in the delay in responding to this request.

 

Please ensure you quote the ref 770,722 in all future correspondence.

 

Yours Sincerely

Highways England FOI Team 
Web: [1]http://highwaysengland.co.uk

 

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[3][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. http://highwaysengland.co.uk/
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
3. mailto:[Highways England request email]

FOI Advice, Highways England Company Limited

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Swift,

Please find attached the internal review reference: IR 100084 of your Freedom of Information request reference: 770,722

Yours Sincerely

Jonathan Drysdale
Freedom of Information Officer (HE)
Information & Technology
Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD
Web: http://highwaysengland.co.uk

show quoted sections

Philip Swift,

3 Attachments

Dear Mr Drysdale,

 

Freedom of Information request reference: 770,722

 

Please find attached response to yours of 02/08/2019 and 05/08/2019

 

Yours Sincerely

 

P. Swift

 

NEWS:

        [1][IMG]

 1. [2]The devil is in the detail
 2. Insurers, fleets & hauliers see [3]600% uplift on Kier charges
 3. Cost Breakdown – spot the [4]difference used to facilitate
exaggeration
 4. New [5]schedule of rates to charge insurers for DCP incidents
 5. Kier Highways [6]do as they please … again.
 6. Highways England seek a copy of HH Godsmark’s judgement. The Judge is
informed a schedule of rates exist, Highways England deny this in
response to an FoIA request.  [7]Who is correct?
 7. No, it is not the latest Harry Potter book …. ‘Highways England and
the [8]Mythical Costs’

 

[9]sig

Claims Management & Adjusting Ltd
Malling House, Town Hill, West Malling, Kent, ME19 6QL
Tel 0845 3 8888 10 Fax 0845 3 8888 01 Web [10]www.cmaclaims.co.uk

Registered in England & Wales, registered office as above.  Registration #
02955406

Note: calls to or from CMA may be recorded and or monitored, pursuant to
LBP Regulations 2000, to establish the existence of facts and / or to
prevent and / or detect crime.

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for
the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this Email. Please notify the sender
immediately by Email if you have received this Email by mistake and delete
this Email from your system.

Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure (unless you have a
security certificate in place with CMA) or error-free as information could
be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or
contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions in the contents of this message or attached documents
or for any damage suffered by your computer system caused by any errors or
viruses contained in the Email message or any attached documents.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/the-dev...
2. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/the-dev...
3. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/600-mar...
4. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/cost-br...
5. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/new-cha...
6. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/highway...
7. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/04-06-2...
8. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/defined...
10. blocked::http://www.cmaclaims.co.uk/
http://www.cmaclaims.co.uk/

Philip Swift,

1 Attachment

Dear sirs

 

Please find the attached request for an internal review.

 

Yours faithfully

 

P. Swift

      

 1. [1]The devil is in the detail
 2. Insurers, fleets & hauliers see [2]600% uplift on Kier charges
 3. Cost Breakdown – spot the [3]difference used to facilitate
exaggeration
 4. New [4]schedule of rates to charge insurers for DCP incidents
 5. Kier Highways [5]do as they please … again.
 6. Highways England seek a copy of HH Godsmark’s judgement. The Judge is
informed a schedule of rates exist, Highways England deny this in
response to an FoIA request.  [6]Who is correct?
 7. No, it is not the latest Harry Potter book …. ‘Highways England and
the [7]Mythical Costs’

Claims Management & Adjusting Ltd
Malling House, Town Hill, West Malling, Kent, ME19 6QL
Tel 0845 3 8888 10 Web [8]www.cmaclaims.co.uk

Registered in England & Wales, registered office as above.  Registration #
02955406

Note: calls to or from CMA may be recorded and or monitored, pursuant to
LBP Regulations 2000, to establish the existence of facts and / or to
prevent and / or detect crime.

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for
the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this Email. Please notify the sender
immediately by Email if you have received this Email by mistake and delete
this Email from your system.

Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure (unless you have a
security certificate in place with CMA) or error-free as information could
be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or
contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions in the contents of this message or attached documents
or for any damage suffered by your computer system caused by any errors or
viruses contained in the Email message or any attached documents.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/the-dev...
2. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/600-mar...
3. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/cost-br...
4. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/new-cha...
5. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/highway...
6. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/04-06-2...
7. http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/defined...
8. blocked::http://www.cmaclaims.co.uk/
http://www.cmaclaims.co.uk/

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

Friday, 09 August 2019
Highways England
request-555384-7004a55b@whatdotheyknow.com
Dear Sirs,
INTERNAL REVIEW CRS Ref. 770,722
Thank you for your response of 02/08/2019.
To address a possible repetition, please refer to my request of 23/07/2019: 'Area 10 BBMM Above Threshold Rates & Subsidy' in respect of which I have yet to receive your reference.
The above request follows my approach to Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald (BBMM) your contractor until 04/2019 in Area 10. I understand BBMM directed the request to yourselves, you then wrote to me and I placed my response at the above link and am due to receive a reply by 21/08/2019.
It is possible your comprehensive response to the below matter, your reference 770772, will address and negate the above. However, I am concerned that you appear unwilling to seek information from BBMM.
I refer to your message of 07/06/2019 and that the due date for delivering the information was 02/07/2019. I have patiently waited only to have the response delivered out of time (outside 20 working days) and 'coincidentally', after my Tribunal Appeal (to which you refer) documents were due - 31/07/2019. I have received no explanation for the delay.
I am now seeking an internal review of the 02/08/2019 response.
You wrote ‘we are now treating the e-mails that you sent on 4 and 5 June 2019, which are similar/provided in addition to those received on 25 April, as a new request and they have been allocated to the relevant team for a response’. You now appear to consider the request the same as a previous, repeated, not similar.
Any similarity in my requests is designed to address the semantics and contradictions I am subject to by Highways England; further inadequate and inaccurate responses. Your replies are illogical and contradict those of your contractor. You have, post 11/2018, when Mr Carney stated DCP Rates are not commercially sensitive, claimed not to possess a schedule of DCP rates for Area 10. However, your Area 10 contractor Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald (BBMM), the party billing you, states a schedule of rates exists. This existence of rates has been conveyed to us by BBMM, their lawyers and to a Court by your witness - the rates exist. It is evident Highways England do not wish to disclose these rates and I remind you a Tribunal wrote (EA/2018/0088):
'... looking at the evidence before us we do not accept that there could or should have been any harassment or distress (of and to staff) in an organisation of the size and import of the second respondent in this appeal. They were of such a scale that the important information sought by the Appellant should have been within their capacity to process without causing harassment or distress. We find that the failure to recognise and process the requests was principally caused by inadequate or inaccurate responses by the personnel within Public Authority. We find this to be the cause of what came to be described as “Obsessive behaviour” on the part of the requestor, which in our view, in all the circumstances was not manifestly unreasonable.'
'We have been persuaded that he has received erroneous information. Amongst other issues he requested information on three issues his business is concerned which include;
a. One of the contractors was inflating their costs on a scale arguably amounting to fraud;
b. Costs are different according to Third Parties being billed directly on the basis that the costs of the works fall below the procedural threshold and
c. Transparency and an inability to check costs e.g. on Staff overtime and using false registration VRN number plates.
We are satisfied his requests on these issues would have taken forward these matters which were worthy of investigation.'
________________________________________
BBMM – Area 10
________________________________________
1. I asked: ‘Please provide all information held by your contractor. You have not supplied the information held by BBMM. Please provide this information along with a copy of your request and their response’. Your replied:
This information is not held. Highways England has not requested this information from BBMM and therefore a copy of the request and response is also not held.
1a. Please explain why you have not sought the rates from your contractor, BBMM.
• The DCP rates are held on your behalf by your contractor.
• The DCP rates are used to bill you by your contractor
• Your contractor states (as per the Judgement – HH Godsmark) rates are subsidised. Whether this is correct or not, the fact is, rates exist.
Previously, a request for rates relating to a contractor's operatives saw you approach the contractor for the information (05/05/2018). A more recent request related to costs & recoveries by Kier (28/11/2018). In both cases, you approached your contractor, the information was provided and supplied to the requestor. It appears this is the straightforward means by which to acquire the information I have sought.
When information is held by another person on behalf of a public authority, the information is held by the public authority for FOIA purposes. The information is held by BBMM on your behalf. it is therefore held.
Irrespective, the DCP Rates are used by BBMM to bill you, the Authority. It is reasonable:
• For DCP Rates to have been negotiated and agreed at contract commencement
• for these to be possessed by you
• For these to be made available to you
With regard to Area 10, DCP rates are only used to bill you (over £10k) though, in turn, you pass the costs on to Third Parties. Below £10k, BBMM uses CECA. Therefore any reference by you to Third-Parties is irrelevant, save where you seek to recover from them; the Area 10 process is simplified - DCP Rates are used over-threshold only i.e. just when billing you.
You do not state ‘BBMM do not hold the rates’.
1b. Please confirm that you will, without further delay, seek a copy of the rates from BBMM; those rates to which Mr Ellis was referring when giving evidence before HH Godsmark and
1c. explain how, if at all, the rates BBMM charges you are affected by the lumpsum payment i.e. the calculation that enables base-rates to be determined.
________________________________________
Judgement & Intention to Approach to BBMM
________________________________________
2. I asked: ‘The Judgement to which I referred you was provided by your contractor. It is the document upon which BBMM have been and are relying. It appears BBMM could be approached for the information (and see ‘1’ above).
a. Why has this not occurred?
b. When will it occur?’
You replied:
Previously it was indicated that Highway’s England did not have a copy of the Judgement, this was incorrect, and a copy was held. Please accept my apologies for this oversight but the fact that a copy was held negated the need to approach BBMM for a copy and therefore no approach has or will be made. The copy of the judgment which Highways England has obtained is attached.
Thank you for the copy judgement. The fact that a copy was held by you does not negate your intention to approach BBMM for a copy. It is evident, in order to obtain a copy of the judgement, you were prepared to approach BBMM.
I refer you to Q1 (above); as you were prepared to approach your contractor (BBMM) for information in respect of the Judgement, it follows a request could be made for the rates BBMM use when billing you; DCP Rates that are not commercially sensitive.
________________________________________
s14(2) & 12/11/2019 Hearing
________________________________________
3. I asked ‘An issue relating to Area rates is subject to appeal. This request stands on its own. Were it not, I feel sure you would have cited duplicity or repetition to exempt a reply. The request differs from others in that it deals with a set of rates stated to a Judge to exist and for above threshold only.
a. Please explain your stance given, as advised, your contractor states the rates exist.
b. As at '2' above: have you approached your contractor for the information?
c. please provide a copy of the approach and their reply’.
You replied:
The existence of a schedule of rates relating to damage caused by third parties is a repeat request which is the subject of a current appeal. A hearing date is now set for 12 November. Therefore, under Section 14(2) of the Freedom of Information Act we will not be responding further to this repeated question. An approach to BBMM has not been made.
The hearing date of 12/11/2019 was clearly considered when responding and I refer you to my opening remark about the delay in responding. This hearing date was set a little over a week ago and relates to EA.2019.0119, a request for information in respect of Area 3, a Kier Highways Ltd managed Area, in which invoices to Third Parties should be compiled using Defined Costs and a Third Party Claims Overhead (TPCO) for sub-threshold (£10,000) matters and the same Defined Costs for above-threshold claims.
This request relates to Area 10 where DCP Rates:
• are not used for sub-threshold billing
• are used over-threshold rates to HE and
• are stated to exist - referred to in the Judgement (above).
The Appeal hearing 12/11/2019 to which you refer when citing s14(2) is substantially different though I accept you have stated there are no DCP rates in any ASC i.e. there are none in Area 10 (this request). However, whilst your 'no rates' statement is contradicted by Mr Ellis / HH Godsmark and this will be cited in support of ongoing, repat, misinformation at the 12/11/2019 hearing, the request differs substantially as described above and stands on its own in that it relates solely to Area 10 in which:
• Appendix A to Annex 23 does not apply
• BBMM use CECA rates below the threshold
• Above the threshold, BBMM use DCP rates which:
o BBMM state are subsidised by the monthly lump-sum payment yet
o Highway England state there is no subsidy i.e. the rates are unadulterated DCP Rates
________________________________________
s14(2) Rates
________________________________________
4. I asked ‘There is and must be more to add. A definition is one thing, the ‘numbers’ are another. You have specifically referred to ‘costs’ and it must surely be obvious that having agreed a definition, to output a charge, to apply the definition, there must be numbers. It appears Highways England are being deliberately obtuse in their hackneyed referral to the Defined Cost 'definition’. I am aware of the definition, which provides a meaning, I am seeking the applied figures. The act of defining should make something definite, distinct, or clear. Your response appears intended to obfuscate and do anything but make matters transparent. Please explain the reference to 'costs' and how the definition is applied.
Contractors have been invoicing using the methodology since 2012, at the commencement of any contract the compilation of a rate charged was clearly based on something; what?
This is clarified, progressed in point 5:
You replied:
As previously advised the calculation for third party claims is contained in Annex 23 of the respective area asset support contracts. This is a repeated request which has already received a response however in order to close out this request we confirm the position. A schedule of rates in relation to third party repairs does not form part of any of the ASC contractual or operational documents. Prior to the introduction of the new National Schedule of Repair Costs in June 2019 HE did not routinely hold a document or documents with a list of cost and rates for third party claims.
The model ASC contracts publicly available online (LINK). Please note that the various ASCs whilst based on the model documents may differ in some respects as they have been individually negotiated and varied over time.
The term ‘Defined Cost’ refers to a definition in the contract, the contract does not contain a schedule of Defined Costs. The Defined Cost is calculated in accordance with the definition. This is based on actual costs incurred by the service provider and there is not pre-set schedule of defined cost, or other schedule that is used. The definition is contained at clause 11.1 and is stated as follows:
(27) Defined Cost is

o the amount of payments due to Subcontractors for work which is subcontracted without taking account of amounts deducted for
 payments to Others and
 the supply of equipment, supplies and services included in the charge for overhead costs incurred within the Working Areas in this contract and
o the cost of the components in Schedule 1 for other work less o the cost of preparing quotations for compensation events where the work affected forms part of the Lump Sum Duties and
o Disallowed Cost.
In the Conditions of Contract Schedule 1 contains the Schedule of Cost Components, which can be found at page 101 (LINK). This schedule does not contain any figures or rates but sets out the heads of costs that may be recovered by the service provider.
The Pricing Schedule, including Appendices A, B and C, does include rates. These rates are the rates tendered by the service provider during the procurement process. The purpose of these rates is to build the target cost model which is used during the operation of the contract as a basis for calculating the pain gain share. We have previously advised that these rates are exempt from disclosure as the conditions under s43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are met. This was recently upheld by the First Tier Tribunal in the complainant’s appeal against the Information Commissioners decision – tribunal reference EA/2018/0104.
The process for administering Third Party Claims is covered in Annex 23 Third Party Claims (LINK)
The principles under Appendix A of ASC identify three heads of cost items (a, b and c) which are established by assessing Defined Costs (i.e. in effect the actual cost of a given incident) and four items (d,e,f and g) are included in the Third Party Claims Overhead which is a percentage applied to the sum of a+b+c.
However, even where the ASC specifies that the repair work is to be charged by reference to the Defined Cost plus overhead, there is no schedule of defined costs. Each case is treated on its own merits i.e. the Defined Cost being the cost to the service provider of inspecting the damage and having the repair carried out.
ASCs require the service provider to undertake repairs and to recover the costs directly from third parties in respect of claims under £10,000. The work involved in an emergency response is determined by the nature, scale and urgency of the incident and repair, and consequently the repair costs are a bespoke calculation.
The schedules of rates specified in the ASCs are not used to work out the Defined Cost, or for assessing the reasonable cost of repair in respect of third party claims, whether above or below £10,000.
We are not aware of, and do not hold, any supporting documents used to aid the calculations. As stated above the calculation for each repair cost is a bespoke calculation.
This is considered a repeated request, whilst we have provided a response on this occasion we reserve the right, under Section 14(2) to refuse future identical or substantially similar requests.
This is not a repeat request. It is a specific request for the rates your witness states exist in Area 10, rates that are used to bill you above-threshold.
I have taken issue with your hackneyed reference to 'defined costs' used in an attempt to dismiss my valid and reasonable request. 'Defined Costs' do not, to my knowledge, apply in Area 10 therefore, all such references by you to them are irrelevant, a distraction, obfuscation.
Insofar as Area 10 is concerned, contrary to your statement above, you are aware of supporting documents to aid the calculations; you have provided a copy of HH Godsmark’s Judgement in which it is stated your witness, Mr Ellis, makes specific reference to a schedule. For example, at para 15:
BBMM do have agreed rates with Highways England for repairs where the total is over £10,000.
4a. Please supply the agreed rates
A further example can be found at para 30:
He (Mr Ellis) was asked why the same rates which were used in pricing repairs of over £10,000 could not be used. His response was that the £10,000 + rates were negotiated prescribed rates which were in part subsidised by the lump sum paid under the agreement.
4b. Please supply the rates to which Mr Ellis is referring and
4c. how these are, in part, subsidised by the lump sum paid under the agreement or
4d. confirm, as per a previous FoIA response, they are not subsidised
The 12/04/2019, FoIA response is clear; the lump-sum paid contributes toward the costs where no culprit is identified i.e. there is no one to pursue recovery from. This is obviously the opposite situation to that I am considering; there has to be a culprit for a claim to be presented. The full response can also be found on the WDTK site.
If, as BBMM state, the rates within the schedule are subsidised by the monthly lump-sum payment made by Highways England, it follows that you must be aware of:
• The rates
• The subsidy
• The discount applied to the lump-sum payment
When responding, please:
4e. address the contradiction; Mr Ellis states to the Courts that there is a schedule of rates, I am seeking the rates to which Mr Ellis refers, the rates used to bill you (Highways England) yet you state these do not exist. Why am I subject to such a contradiction and the associated frustration? Who is being misled; HH Godsmark or me?
It appears there is a schedule of rates. It does not appear these are subsidised. It appears the Judge and I are being misled. Your response to this request follows your consideration of internal review reference: 770,246 (770246) of my Freedom of
Information request reference 769,305 (769305) when, 05/06/2019, I demonstrated rate consistency, for example, vehicle:
FD16SNU
26/02/2017 £10.51
17/10/2018 £10.51
The above vehicle, charged on a date well over a year apart, are priced exactly the same. The consistency is demonstrated in every VRM supplied 05/06/2019.
________________________________________
s14(2) Calculation
________________________________________
5. I asked ‘Please explain the calculation, from where the figures are obtained and how the output (sum) is arrived at’.
You replied:
The calculation has previously been explained and copies of Annex 23 of the asset support contract provided.
This is considered a repeated request, whilst we have provided a response (in question 4 above) on this occasion we reserve the right, under Section 14(2) to refuse future identical or substantially similar requests.
Again, this is not a repeat but a standalone request for information about the calculation used to arrive at the consistent charges presented (see '4' above).
You have yet to explain how rates in Area 10 above-threshold are reached. It is not by use of Defined Cost + TPCO or fee.
5a. BBMM state it is by reference to a schedule, if not, then how?
This Area 10 request does not touch upon the use of 'defined costs' and a 'TPCO' i.e. the explanation provided for Area 9 (as an example) is not applicable as Appendix A to Annex 23 does not apply and BBMM are not using 'defined costs' above and below the threshold. Instead, BBMM bill you by use of a schedule of rates - as explained to HH Godsmark.
I again refer you to a Tribunal Decision in relation to DCP Rates (Area 9):
We accept that the purpose of the request was to obtain information to support a proposed claim of misfeasance in public office and that there was an adequate and proper justification for the request. On the evidence before us we accept that the request is serious and justified in that it related to suspected gross overcharging of Third Parties which was alleged to have been enabled and assisted by the Public Authority. If he was correct in his concerns the Requestor was attempting to identify Fraud.
Yours faithfully,

P. Swift

Dear Mr. Drysdale,

I refer to my request for an Internal Review of 09/08/2019. Please advise by when I can anticipate a response - 20 working days have passed, the review is overdue.

82. Paragraphs 39 to 41 cover the internal review process and
stress the importance of keeping the applicant informed at all
stages on:
• the progress of the complaint; and
• the likely timescale for completion.
83. If an internal review results in the disclosure of information
which was previously withheld, the public authority should
inform the applicant of the outcome as soon as possible and tell
them when they are likely to receive the information.
84. In any event an internal review should take no longer than 20
working days in most cases, or 40 in exceptional
circumstances.

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Highways England, Highways England Company Limited

This is an automated response:

 

Thank you for your email to Highways England.

 

If you’re reporting a real time issue which requires immediate attention
please call the Customer Contact Centre on 0300 123 5000. 

 

A map of the roads for which we are responsible can be found here
[1]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk....
If the road you’re interested in isn’t on this map it will fall under the
jurisdiction of the local authority.  You can find details of local
authorities using the search facility on the gov.uk website
at: [2]https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council

 

If your email does relate to an issue on Highways England's network it
will be passed to the relevant team within Highways England and they will
respond to you within a maximum of 15 working days.

 

If you’ve made a request under the Freedom of Information Act we will
respond to you within a maximum of 20 working days. Your request will be
dealt with in line with government guidelines:
[3]https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...

 

Please be advised that emails may be monitored for training and quality
assurance purposes.

 

To help us improve our service please click [4]here to complete a short
survey.

 

Kind regards

 

Highways England Customer Contact Centre.

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[5]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[6][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
2. https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
3. https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
4. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/HECCC
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
6. mailto:[Highways England request email]

Dear Mr Drysdale,

I refer to your numerous apologies about delays. Please advise by when I can expect a response to my Internal Review about this matter - the response was due days ago.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Swift

Highways England, Highways England Company Limited

This is an automated response:

 

Thank you for your email to Highways England.

 

If you’re reporting a real time issue which requires immediate attention
please call the Customer Contact Centre on 0300 123 5000. 

 

A map of the roads for which we are responsible can be found here
[1]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk....
If the road you’re interested in isn’t on this map it will fall under the
jurisdiction of the local authority.  You can find details of local
authorities using the search facility on the gov.uk website
at: [2]https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council

 

If your email does relate to an issue on Highways England's network it
will be passed to the relevant team within Highways England and they will
respond to you within a maximum of 15 working days.

 

If you’ve made a request under the Freedom of Information Act we will
respond to you within a maximum of 20 working days. Your request will be
dealt with in line with government guidelines:
[3]https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...

 

Please be advised that emails may be monitored for training and quality
assurance purposes.

 

To help us improve our service please click [4]here to complete a short
survey.

 

Kind regards

 

Highways England Customer Contact Centre.

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[5]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[6][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
2. https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
3. https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
4. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/HECCC
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
6. mailto:[Highways England request email]

FOI Advice, Highways England Company Limited

Dear Mr Swift,

Thank you for your e-mail.

You have indicated that on 9 August 2019 following receipt of the response to request ref 770,722 you requested an internal review of the response through What Do They Know. Unfortunately, this request for an internal review was not received by Highways England and I was unaware of your 9 August request for review until your e-mail below on the 12 September. I have gone back to the What Do They Know log and have seen your 9 August submission via What Do They Know however I have noted that no automatic response was sent back from Highways England, which would appear to indicate that it was not received. I am not sure why this is the case and potentially the What Do They Know team might be able to help you with that.

However, as mentioned above I have noted that there was a request for Internal Review of the final 770,722 response present on the What Do They Know website and this has been logged as being received on 12 September 2019, the date of your chasing e-mail, for the reasons explained above. I would however appreciate it if you could re-submit the internal review request at your earliest convenience, so that we have the actual request on file. Please be assured this will not affect review timescales. Given the log date of 12 September I will endeavour to have the review response with you on or before 10 October 2019 as dictated by point 84 in your e-mail.

Kind Regards

Jonathan Drysdale
Freedom of Information Officer (HE)
Information & Technology
Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD
Web: http://highwaysengland.co.uk

show quoted sections

Friday, 09 August 2019
Highways England
[email address]
Dear Sirs,
INTERNAL REVIEW CRS Ref. 770,722
Thank you for your response of 02/08/2019.
To address a possible repetition, please refer to my request of 23/07/2019: 'Area 10 BBMM Above Threshold Rates & Subsidy' in respect of which I have yet to receive your reference.
The above request follows my approach to Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald (BBMM) your contractor until 04/2019 in Area 10. I understand BBMM directed the request to yourselves, you then wrote to me and I placed my response at the above link and am due to receive a reply by 21/08/2019.
It is possible your comprehensive response to the below matter, your reference 770772, will address and negate the above. However, I am concerned that you appear unwilling to seek information from BBMM.
I refer to your message of 07/06/2019 and that the due date for delivering the information was 02/07/2019. I have patiently waited only to have the response delivered out of time (outside 20 working days) and 'coincidentally', after my Tribunal Appeal (to which you refer) documents were due - 31/07/2019. I have received no explanation for the delay.
I am now seeking an internal review of the 02/08/2019 response.
You wrote ‘we are now treating the e-mails that you sent on 4 and 5 June 2019, which are similar/provided in addition to those received on 25 April, as a new request and they have been allocated to the relevant team for a response’. You now appear to consider the request the same as a previous, repeated, not similar.
Any similarity in my requests is designed to address the semantics and contradictions I am subject to by Highways England; further inadequate and inaccurate responses. Your replies are illogical and contradict those of your contractor. You have, post 11/2018, when Mr Carney stated DCP Rates are not commercially sensitive, claimed not to possess a schedule of DCP rates for Area 10. However, your Area 10 contractor Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald (BBMM), the party billing you, states a schedule of rates exists. This existence of rates has been conveyed to us by BBMM, their lawyers and to a Court by your witness - the rates exist. It is evident Highways England do not wish to disclose these rates and I remind you a Tribunal wrote (EA/2018/0088):
'... looking at the evidence before us we do not accept that there could or should have been any harassment or distress (of and to staff) in an organisation of the size and import of the second respondent in this appeal. They were of such a scale that the important information sought by the Appellant should have been within their capacity to process without causing harassment or distress. We find that the failure to recognise and process the requests was principally caused by inadequate or inaccurate responses by the personnel within Public Authority. We find this to be the cause of what came to be described as “Obsessive behaviour” on the part of the requestor, which in our view, in all the circumstances was not manifestly unreasonable.'
'We have been persuaded that he has received erroneous information. Amongst other issues he requested information on three issues his business is concerned which include;
a. One of the contractors was inflating their costs on a scale arguably amounting to fraud;
b. Costs are different according to Third Parties being billed directly on the basis that the costs of the works fall below the procedural threshold and
c. Transparency and an inability to check costs e.g. on Staff overtime and using false registration VRN number plates.
We are satisfied his requests on these issues would have taken forward these matters which were worthy of investigation.'
________________________________________
BBMM – Area 10
________________________________________
1. I asked: ‘Please provide all information held by your contractor. You have not supplied the information held by BBMM. Please provide this information along with a copy of your request and their response’. Your replied:
This information is not held. Highways England has not requested this information from BBMM and therefore a copy of the request and response is also not held.
1a. Please explain why you have not sought the rates from your contractor, BBMM.
• The DCP rates are held on your behalf by your contractor.
• The DCP rates are used to bill you by your contractor
• Your contractor states (as per the Judgement – HH Godsmark) rates are subsidised. Whether this is correct or not, the fact is, rates exist.
Previously, a request for rates relating to a contractor's operatives saw you approach the contractor for the information (05/05/2018). A more recent request related to costs & recoveries by Kier (28/11/2018). In both cases, you approached your contractor, the information was provided and supplied to the requestor. It appears this is the straightforward means by which to acquire the information I have sought.
When information is held by another person on behalf of a public authority, the information is held by the public authority for FOIA purposes. The information is held by BBMM on your behalf. it is therefore held.
Irrespective, the DCP Rates are used by BBMM to bill you, the Authority. It is reasonable:
• For DCP Rates to have been negotiated and agreed at contract commencement
• for these to be possessed by you
• For these to be made available to you
With regard to Area 10, DCP rates are only used to bill you (over £10k) though, in turn, you pass the costs on to Third Parties. Below £10k, BBMM uses CECA. Therefore any reference by you to Third-Parties is irrelevant, save where you seek to recover from them; the Area 10 process is simplified - DCP Rates are used over-threshold only i.e. just when billing you.
You do not state ‘BBMM do not hold the rates’.
1b. Please confirm that you will, without further delay, seek a copy of the rates from BBMM; those rates to which Mr Ellis was referring when giving evidence before HH Godsmark and
1c. explain how, if at all, the rates BBMM charges you are affected by the lumpsum payment i.e. the calculation that enables base-rates to be determined.
________________________________________
Judgement & Intention to Approach to BBMM
________________________________________
2. I asked: ‘The Judgement to which I referred you was provided by your contractor. It is the document upon which BBMM have been and are relying. It appears BBMM could be approached for the information (and see ‘1’ above).
a. Why has this not occurred?
b. When will it occur?’
You replied:
Previously it was indicated that Highway’s England did not have a copy of the Judgement, this was incorrect, and a copy was held. Please accept my apologies for this oversight but the fact that a copy was held negated the need to approach BBMM for a copy and therefore no approach has or will be made. The copy of the judgment which Highways England has obtained is attached.
Thank you for the copy judgement. The fact that a copy was held by you does not negate your intention to approach BBMM for a copy. It is evident, in order to obtain a copy of the judgement, you were prepared to approach BBMM.
I refer you to Q1 (above); as you were prepared to approach your contractor (BBMM) for information in respect of the Judgement, it follows a request could be made for the rates BBMM use when billing you; DCP Rates that are not commercially sensitive.
________________________________________
s14(2) & 12/11/2019 Hearing
________________________________________
3. I asked ‘An issue relating to Area rates is subject to appeal. This request stands on its own. Were it not, I feel sure you would have cited duplicity or repetition to exempt a reply. The request differs from others in that it deals with a set of rates stated to a Judge to exist and for above threshold only.
a. Please explain your stance given, as advised, your contractor states the rates exist.
b. As at '2' above: have you approached your contractor for the information?
c. please provide a copy of the approach and their reply’.
You replied:
The existence of a schedule of rates relating to damage caused by third parties is a repeat request which is the subject of a current appeal. A hearing date is now set for 12 November. Therefore, under Section 14(2) of the Freedom of Information Act we will not be responding further to this repeated question. An approach to BBMM has not been made.
The hearing date of 12/11/2019 was clearly considered when responding and I refer you to my opening remark about the delay in responding. This hearing date was set a little over a week ago and relates to EA.2019.0119, a request for information in respect of Area 3, a Kier Highways Ltd managed Area, in which invoices to Third Parties should be compiled using Defined Costs and a Third Party Claims Overhead (TPCO) for sub-threshold (£10,000) matters and the same Defined Costs for above-threshold claims.
This request relates to Area 10 where DCP Rates:
• are not used for sub-threshold billing
• are used over-threshold rates to HE and
• are stated to exist - referred to in the Judgement (above).
The Appeal hearing 12/11/2019 to which you refer when citing s14(2) is substantially different though I accept you have stated there are no DCP rates in any ASC i.e. there are none in Area 10 (this request). However, whilst your 'no rates' statement is contradicted by Mr Ellis / HH Godsmark and this will be cited in support of ongoing, repat, misinformation at the 12/11/2019 hearing, the request differs substantially as described above and stands on its own in that it relates solely to Area 10 in which:
• Appendix A to Annex 23 does not apply
• BBMM use CECA rates below the threshold
• Above the threshold, BBMM use DCP rates which:
o BBMM state are subsidised by the monthly lump-sum payment yet
o Highway England state there is no subsidy i.e. the rates are unadulterated DCP Rates
________________________________________
s14(2) Rates
________________________________________
4. I asked ‘There is and must be more to add. A definition is one thing, the ‘numbers’ are another. You have specifically referred to ‘costs’ and it must surely be obvious that having agreed a definition, to output a charge, to apply the definition, there must be numbers. It appears Highways England are being deliberately obtuse in their hackneyed referral to the Defined Cost 'definition’. I am aware of the definition, which provides a meaning, I am seeking the applied figures. The act of defining should make something definite, distinct, or clear. Your response appears intended to obfuscate and do anything but make matters transparent. Please explain the reference to 'costs' and how the definition is applied.
Contractors have been invoicing using the methodology since 2012, at the commencement of any contract the compilation of a rate charged was clearly based on something; what?
This is clarified, progressed in point 5:
You replied:
As previously advised the calculation for third party claims is contained in Annex 23 of the respective area asset support contracts. This is a repeated request which has already received a response however in order to close out this request we confirm the position. A schedule of rates in relation to third party repairs does not form part of any of the ASC contractual or operational documents. Prior to the introduction of the new National Schedule of Repair Costs in June 2019 HE did not routinely hold a document or documents with a list of cost and rates for third party claims.
The model ASC contracts publicly available online (LINK). Please note that the various ASCs whilst based on the model documents may differ in some respects as they have been individually negotiated and varied over time.
The term ‘Defined Cost’ refers to a definition in the contract, the contract does not contain a schedule of Defined Costs. The Defined Cost is calculated in accordance with the definition. This is based on actual costs incurred by the service provider and there is not pre-set schedule of defined cost, or other schedule that is used. The definition is contained at clause 11.1 and is stated as follows:
(27) Defined Cost is

o the amount of payments due to Subcontractors for work which is subcontracted without taking account of amounts deducted for
 payments to Others and
 the supply of equipment, supplies and services included in the charge for overhead costs incurred within the Working Areas in this contract and
o the cost of the components in Schedule 1 for other work less o the cost of preparing quotations for compensation events where the work affected forms part of the Lump Sum Duties and
o Disallowed Cost.
In the Conditions of Contract Schedule 1 contains the Schedule of Cost Components, which can be found at page 101 (LINK). This schedule does not contain any figures or rates but sets out the heads of costs that may be recovered by the service provider.
The Pricing Schedule, including Appendices A, B and C, does include rates. These rates are the rates tendered by the service provider during the procurement process. The purpose of these rates is to build the target cost model which is used during the operation of the contract as a basis for calculating the pain gain share. We have previously advised that these rates are exempt from disclosure as the conditions under s43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are met. This was recently upheld by the First Tier Tribunal in the complainant’s appeal against the Information Commissioners decision – tribunal reference EA/2018/0104.
The process for administering Third Party Claims is covered in Annex 23 Third Party Claims (LINK)
The principles under Appendix A of ASC identify three heads of cost items (a, b and c) which are established by assessing Defined Costs (i.e. in effect the actual cost of a given incident) and four items (d,e,f and g) are included in the Third Party Claims Overhead which is a percentage applied to the sum of a+b+c.
However, even where the ASC specifies that the repair work is to be charged by reference to the Defined Cost plus overhead, there is no schedule of defined costs. Each case is treated on its own merits i.e. the Defined Cost being the cost to the service provider of inspecting the damage and having the repair carried out.
ASCs require the service provider to undertake repairs and to recover the costs directly from third parties in respect of claims under £10,000. The work involved in an emergency response is determined by the nature, scale and urgency of the incident and repair, and consequently the repair costs are a bespoke calculation.
The schedules of rates specified in the ASCs are not used to work out the Defined Cost, or for assessing the reasonable cost of repair in respect of third party claims, whether above or below £10,000.
We are not aware of, and do not hold, any supporting documents used to aid the calculations. As stated above the calculation for each repair cost is a bespoke calculation.
This is considered a repeated request, whilst we have provided a response on this occasion we reserve the right, under Section 14(2) to refuse future identical or substantially similar requests.
This is not a repeat request. It is a specific request for the rates your witness states exist in Area 10, rates that are used to bill you above-threshold.
I have taken issue with your hackneyed reference to 'defined costs' used in an attempt to dismiss my valid and reasonable request. 'Defined Costs' do not, to my knowledge, apply in Area 10 therefore, all such references by you to them are irrelevant, a distraction, obfuscation.
Insofar as Area 10 is concerned, contrary to your statement above, you are aware of supporting documents to aid the calculations; you have provided a copy of HH Godsmark’s Judgement in which it is stated your witness, Mr Ellis, makes specific reference to a schedule. For example, at para 15:
BBMM do have agreed rates with Highways England for repairs where the total is over £10,000.
4a. Please supply the agreed rates
A further example can be found at para 30:
He (Mr Ellis) was asked why the same rates which were used in pricing repairs of over £10,000 could not be used. His response was that the £10,000 + rates were negotiated prescribed rates which were in part subsidised by the lump sum paid under the agreement.
4b. Please supply the rates to which Mr Ellis is referring and
4c. how these are, in part, subsidised by the lump sum paid under the agreement or
4d. confirm, as per a previous FoIA response, they are not subsidised
The 12/04/2019, FoIA response is clear; the lump-sum paid contributes toward the costs where no culprit is identified i.e. there is no one to pursue recovery from. This is obviously the opposite situation to that I am considering; there has to be a culprit for a claim to be presented. The full response can also be found on the WDTK site.
If, as BBMM state, the rates within the schedule are subsidised by the monthly lump-sum payment made by Highways England, it follows that you must be aware of:
• The rates
• The subsidy
• The discount applied to the lump-sum payment
When responding, please:
4e. address the contradiction; Mr Ellis states to the Courts that there is a schedule of rates, I am seeking the rates to which Mr Ellis refers, the rates used to bill you (Highways England) yet you state these do not exist. Why am I subject to such a contradiction and the associated frustration? Who is being misled; HH Godsmark or me?
It appears there is a schedule of rates. It does not appear these are subsidised. It appears the Judge and I are being misled. Your response to this request follows your consideration of internal review reference: 770,246 (770246) of my Freedom of
Information request reference 769,305 (769305) when, 05/06/2019, I demonstrated rate consistency, for example, vehicle:
FD16SNU
26/02/2017 £10.51
17/10/2018 £10.51
The above vehicle, charged on a date well over a year apart, are priced exactly the same. The consistency is demonstrated in every VRM supplied 05/06/2019.
________________________________________
s14(2) Calculation
________________________________________
5. I asked ‘Please explain the calculation, from where the figures are obtained and how the output (sum) is arrived at’.
You replied:
The calculation has previously been explained and copies of Annex 23 of the asset support contract provided.
This is considered a repeated request, whilst we have provided a response (in question 4 above) on this occasion we reserve the right, under Section 14(2) to refuse future identical or substantially similar requests.
Again, this is not a repeat but a standalone request for information about the calculation used to arrive at the consistent charges presented (see '4' above).
You have yet to explain how rates in Area 10 above-threshold are reached. It is not by use of Defined Cost + TPCO or fee.
5a. BBMM state it is by reference to a schedule, if not, then how?
This Area 10 request does not touch upon the use of 'defined costs' and a 'TPCO' i.e. the explanation provided for Area 9 (as an example) is not applicable as Appendix A to Annex 23 does not apply and BBMM are not using 'defined costs' above and below the threshold. Instead, BBMM bill you by use of a schedule of rates - as explained to HH Godsmark.
I again refer you to a Tribunal Decision in relation to DCP Rates (Area 9):
We accept that the purpose of the request was to obtain information to support a proposed claim of misfeasance in public office and that there was an adequate and proper justification for the request. On the evidence before us we accept that the request is serious and justified in that it related to suspected gross overcharging of Third Parties which was alleged to have been enabled and assisted by the Public Authority. If he was correct in his concerns the Requestor was attempting to identify Fraud.
Yours faithfully,

P. Swift

Dear Highways England Company Limited,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Highways England Company Limited's handling of my FOI request 'The Schedule of Damage to Crown Property Rates – Area 10'.

request re-submitted

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Highways England, Highways England Company Limited

This is an automated response:

 

Thank you for your email to Highways England.

 

If you’re reporting a real time issue which requires immediate attention
please call the Customer Contact Centre on 0300 123 5000. 

 

A map of the roads for which we are responsible can be found here
[1]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk....
If the road you’re interested in isn’t on this map it will fall under the
jurisdiction of the local authority.  You can find details of local
authorities using the search facility on the gov.uk website
at: [2]https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council

 

If your email does relate to an issue on Highways England's network it
will be passed to the relevant team within Highways England and they will
respond to you within a maximum of 15 working days.

 

If you’ve made a request under the Freedom of Information Act we will
respond to you within a maximum of 20 working days. Your request will be
dealt with in line with government guidelines:
[3]https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...

 

Please be advised that emails may be monitored for training and quality
assurance purposes.

 

To help us improve our service please click [4]here to complete a short
survey.

 

Kind regards

 

Highways England Customer Contact Centre.

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[5]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[6][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
2. https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
3. https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
4. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/HECCC
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
6. mailto:[Highways England request email]

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

From: casework@ico.org.uk <casework@ico.org.uk>
Sent: 08 October 2019 09:45
Subject: ICO response - your email dated 07/10/19 [Ref. FS50873250]

8 October 2019

Case Reference Number FS50873250

Dear Mr Swift

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...

Information request to Highways England

Thank you for your correspondence of 7 October 2019 in which you complain about the time taken for Highways England to carry out an internal review that you requested on 16 September 2019.

The right to complain to the Information Commissioner is given under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). However, a complaint may be deemed ineligible under section 50, if for example:
• There is an undue delay before bringing a complaint to our attention, or;
• You have not exhausted any complaints procedure which is provided by the public authority.

Therefore, before accepting complaints, the Commissioner requires complainants to allow public authorities the opportunity to respond to their appeal for a review of the handling of or decision regarding their FOIA request.

Although there is no statutory time set out in the FOIA within which public authorities must complete a review, the Commissioner has issued guidance on this matter. The Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review, and in no case should the total time taken exceed 40 working days.

As Highways England has not yet had 40 working days to complete its review, we will not be taking further action for the time being. This case will remain closed, however if you do not receive a response by 12 November 2019 please contact us quoting the reference number on this letter.

If you remain dissatisfied after having exhausted Highways England internal review process and would like us to look into the matter, please contact us explaining your complaint, and provide us with a copy of the internal review decision.

Please quote the reference number on this letter in correspondence relating to this matter.

If we can be of any further assistance please contact me on the number below, quoting your case reference number. You may also find some useful information on our website at www.ico.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

Anjum Iqbal (Mr)
Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office

0330 414 6239

Dear Highways England Company Limited,

a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review and this has passed.

Please keep me updated about the progress; by wen is it anticipated the review will be completed and provided?

Yours faithfully,

Mr P Swift

Highways England, Highways England Company Limited

This is an automated response:

 

Thank you for your email to Highways England.

 

If you’re reporting a real time issue which requires immediate attention
please call the Customer Contact Centre on 0300 123 5000.

 

A map of the roads for which we are responsible can be found here
[1]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk....
If the road you’re interested in isn’t on this map it will fall under the
jurisdiction of the local authority. You can find details of local
authorities using the search facility on the gov.uk website at:
[2]https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council

 

If your email does relate to an issue on Highways England's network it
will be passed to the relevant team within Highways England and they will
respond to you within a maximum of 15 working days.

 

If you’ve made a request under the Freedom of Information Act we will
respond to you within a maximum of 20 working days. Your request will be
dealt with in line with government guidelines:
[3]https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...

 

Please be advised that emails may be monitored for training and quality
assurance purposes.

 

To help us improve our service please click [4]here to complete a short
survey.

 

Kind regards

 

Highways England Customer Contact Centre

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[5]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[6][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
2. https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
https://www.gov.uk/find-your-local-council
3. https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-inf...
4. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/HECCC
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
6. mailto:[Highways England request email]

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

to ICO

FOI Advice, Highways England Company Limited

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Swift,

 

Please find attached the internal review ref. IR 100084 of your freedom of
information request ref. 770,722. My apologies for the delay but this was
accidently sent to one of your other WDTK threads.

 

Kind Regards

 

Jonathan Drysdale

Freedom of Information Officer (HE)

Information & Technology

Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD

Web: [1]http://highwaysengland.co.uk

 

From: FOI Advice
Sent: 18 October 2019 15:24
To: '[email address]'
<[email address]>
Subject: Internal Review Reference: IR 100084

 

Dear Mr Swift,

 

Please find attached the internal review ref. IR 100084 of your freedom of
information request ref. 770,722.

 

Kind Regards

 

Jonathan Drysdale

Freedom of Information Officer (HE)

Information & Technology

Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD

Web: [2]http://highwaysengland.co.uk

 

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended
only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution,
disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and destroy it.

 

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000
|National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park,
Birmingham B32 1AF |
[3]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... |
[4][Highways England request email]

 

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge
House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ 

 

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really
need to.

References

Visible links
1. http://highwaysengland.co.uk/
2. http://highwaysengland.co.uk/
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
4. mailto:[Highways England request email]

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

Highways england responded:

On the 2 August 2019 Highways England responded under ref. 770,722 and included a copy of the judgment alongside the response. I have not repeated the response here but have included as attachment alongside this review.

On the 5 August 2019 following a request for an internal review on 3 July 2019 because no response had been received, I provided a response accepting that response 770,722 had been provided outside of the statutory 20-working day deadline and apologising for this. Therefore, having already covered this issue I will not be addressing it again in this review.

On the 12 September 2019 you e-mailed Highways England asking for an internal review of the response provided on 2 August 2019.

I have now taken the opportunity to review the request and the response provided, and to discuss this with team who provided the response. Following my review of the response and my discussions with the team, I am satisfied that the original response to 770,722 addressed the questions in your request and that there is nothing further to add to those responses.

If you are not satisfied with the outcome of this review you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

Jonathan Drysdale
Freedom of Information Officer

Mr P Swift left an annotation ()

ICO reference FS50873250
29 January 2020
File review to ICO
HE & Area 10 BBMM rates / subsidy
FoI FOI 769,305 & 770,722 & 769,993
IR 100084