Dear Sheffield City Council,

I would like to see all correspondence between Sheffield Licensing Department and Uber Britannia Limited between and inclusive of the dates 01/04/2018 to 10/12/2018

Any information contained that has an explanation of events or time stamped logs would not be classed as business sensitive because it would not show the exact formula, merely time stamps and descriptions.

An example of this would be how Hovis produce a loaf of bread, none sensitive would be that they mix flour and water into dough, place the dough in a tin and then cook in an oven.

However, if they stated the exact measurements and water temperature, then explained the make and model of the oven including what temperature it was set to and how long the dough was in the oven and then rested to cool and at what temperature it cooled, this could be then classed as business sensitive.

this is no different for how Ubers system works, I am only wish to see any timings of the process, not the code or algorithm involved.

Yours faithfully,

Lee Ward

FOI, Sheffield City Council

Dear Lee Ward,
 
Thank you for your recent request for information relating to
Correspondence between Sheffield Licensing Department and Uber which we
received on 12/10/2018.
 
This has been logged as a Freedom of Information Request, and will be
dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act.  The reference number for
your request can be found above.
 
The Freedom of Information Act states that we must respond to you within
20 working days, therefore, you should expect to hear a response from us
by 09/11/2018.
 
In the meantime, if you have any queries please, contact us at the email
address below.
 
Thank you.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
 
 
_____________________________________________
From: Lee Ward [[2]mailto:[FOI #526013 email]]
Sent: 12 October 2018 20:55
To: FOI
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Uber correspondence
 
Dear Sheffield City Council,
 
I would like to see all correspondence between Sheffield Licensing
Department and Uber Britannia Limited between and inclusive of the dates
01/04/2018 to 10/12/2018
 
Any information contained that has an explanation of events or time
stamped logs would not be classed as business sensitive because it would
not show the exact formula, merely time stamps and descriptions.
 
An example of this would be how Hovis produce a loaf of bread, none
sensitive would be that they mix flour and water into dough, place the
dough in a tin and then cook in an oven.
 
However, if they stated the exact measurements and water temperature, then
explained the make and model of the oven including what temperature it was
set to and how long the dough was in the oven and then rested to cool and
at what temperature it cooled, this could be then classed as business
sensitive.
 
this is no different for how Ubers system works, I am only wish to see any
timings of the process, not the code or algorithm involved.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Lee Ward
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[3][FOI #526013 email]
 
Is [4][Sheffield City Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Sheffield City Council? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
 
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
 
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
 
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.
 
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
 
 

show quoted sections

FOI, Sheffield City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Lee Ward,
 
Thank you for your recent request for information relating to
Correspondence between Sheffield Licensing Department and Uber which we
received on 12/10/18.
 
Please find attached, Sheffield City Council’s response to your request.
If you have any queries about this response, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
 
If you are unhappy with the response you have received in relation to your
request, you are entitled to have this reviewed.  You can ask for an
internal review by either writing to the above address or by emailing
[1][Sheffield City Council request email].  Internal review requests should be submitted
within 40 working days from the date of this response.
 
If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of your internal review, you
can contact the Information Commissioners Office. The Information
Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone 0303
123 1113, or for further details see their website [2]www.ico.org.uk
 
Kind Regards,
 
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [3][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
 
_____________________________________________
From: Lee Ward [[4]mailto:[FOI #526013 email]]
Sent: 12 October 2018 20:55
To: FOI
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Uber correspondence
 
Dear Sheffield City Council,
 
I would like to see all correspondence between Sheffield Licensing
Department and Uber Britannia Limited between and inclusive of the dates
01/04/2018 to 10/12/2018
 
Any information contained that has an explanation of events or time
stamped logs would not be classed as business sensitive because it would
not show the exact formula, merely time stamps and descriptions.
 
An example of this would be how Hovis produce a loaf of bread, none
sensitive would be that they mix flour and water into dough, place the
dough in a tin and then cook in an oven.
 
However, if they stated the exact measurements and water temperature, then
explained the make and model of the oven including what temperature it was
set to and how long the dough was in the oven and then rested to cool and
at what temperature it cooled, this could be then classed as business
sensitive.
 
this is no different for how Ubers system works, I am only wish to see any
timings of the process, not the code or algorithm involved.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Lee Ward
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #526013 email]
 
Is [6][Sheffield City Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Sheffield City Council? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
 
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
 
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[9]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
 
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.
 
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear Sheffield City Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Sheffield City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Uber correspondence'.

I wish to contest this answer to my FOI Reference 1195 dated the 9th of November 2018 for the following reasons.

Section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000

This states that the information required is also subject to S40 (1) and the information that I request is not my information.

That the first condition (3A) would be breached, the information is far from an issue for national security.

The second condition (3B) Gives the data subject a right to object, I see nothing within the redacted correspondence where Uber have asked for a right to object.

The third condition (4A) Is such a widespread amendment of the DPA 2018, I am surprised you included it.

My first question is, you are quoting information in relation to a live person as a reason to use the DPA and GDPR, my request, in particular, was in regards to the time line date stamped data log of how a booking was received and dealt with, I see no reason to include a person's personal information on this, and that particular detail could have been redacted without issue.

Section 41(4) Confidential information.

Because a communication has been labeled confidential, does not give it the right to be treat as such, or the whole process of the FOI system would be a complete mockery.

One aspect of lawful disclosure is where disclosure is necessary to safeguard the individual, or others, or is in the public interest;

To determine if the booking process is legal by Uber and not backfilled, then this would be in the public interest due to the issue of drivers taking the public for hire and reward regarding the insurance that the vehicle carries.

Section 43(2) Commercial interests

Firstly, I will address the lesser extent of where Sheffield City Council may be exempt for commercial issues, can you point me to the legislation that makes a local council authority a commercial enterprise?

Secondly, I am requesting redacted information as to the time stamps of a booking from an individual (also redacted) to the completion of the booking (exact pick and destination also redacted) so where is the commercial sensitivity in this?

This information would not be of a benefit to a competitor due to the competitor working within the requirements of the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1976, however, should the data prove that Uber are not working within the same constraints of that Act then I agree, this would indeed inhibit their independent position and performance, but that would not be an issue for the data that I requested, it would be an issue for uber to explain, would it not?

The possibility for Sheffield City Council to be sued, is not and should not override the basic principle of disclosing information and that is a statement that I will simply not accept.

What harm could be caused by the release of the information.

The information given by Uber could also be the core reason for the Hackney trade in the said market to be as devastated as it is, if the business model that Uber operate is an illegal E Hailing system that only the Hackney trade can in fact and law operate.

As for the relationship between Uber and the Council, that is of absolutely no interest to this discussion and quite frankly, is offending to the trade. The relationship between Uber and the Council is one regulated by the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1976 and not by emails or meetings.

Can I ask when the Sheffield City council decided on the commercial interests of both parties? Or indeed on the Councils interests alone and not on the travelling public of Sheffield?

Balance of Public Interest Argument

You state that:

On balance there is a strong public interest in the disclosure of the information declared commercially sensitive

Then you go on to try to explain how this would not be in the public interest or the councils commercial interests.

I am sorry but, the licensing of Private Hire Operators and the way that they perform this task is not in the commercial interest of the Sheffield City Council but most definitely in the role as a local authority who adopted the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1976

I therefore wish for an internal review of this FOI and expect a response well within the 20 day limit as the last one was, I do not believe the Council is being open and transparent on this matter.

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

Yours faithfully,

Lee Ward

FOI, Sheffield City Council

Dear Lee Ward,
 
Thank you for your recent request for a review of the Freedom of
Information response provided to you.  Your response related to
information regarding Correspondence between Sheffield Licensing
Department and Uber.
 
We are sorry to hear that you are not happy with your response.
 
I am writing to acknowledge your request for a review, which we received
on 12/11/18.  This has now been logged and will be carried out by a member
of the team.
 
We will endeavour to provide a response between 20 to 40 working days in
line with ICO guidance.
In the meantime, if you have any queries please, contact us at the email
address below.
 
Thank you.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

I am disappointed that this review has taken a full 40 working days in which there has still not been any answer provided.

The reason for which is baffling me from what is a basic request for information that you have already stated you hold and have identified.

Yours sincerely,

Lee Ward

FOI, Sheffield City Council

Dear Mr Ward
 
I am responding to your request for an internal review of your Freedom of
Information response.  First of all please accept my apologies in the
delay in getting back you regarding this.  We have had a change in
staffing the team which has caused the delay, nevertheless you should have
received a response to your Internal Review earlier than this.
 
I understand that you express dissatisfaction as you disagree with the
exemptions that have been applied to the recorded information that the
Council holds.
 
I have reviewed your request, and first of all, I can confirm that your
response was provided within the 20 working days that we are obliged to
spend responding to Freedom of Information requests, therefore, in this
case, the Council have complied with Section 10 of the FOI Act.
 
I have also reviewed your response we provided to you which quoted the
following exemptions:
 

* Section 40(2) – Personal information
* Section 41(1) – Information provided in confidence
* Section 43(4) – Commercial interests

 
I have reviewed the recorded information that we hold relating to your
request and I have concluded that the information has been correctly
exempt under Freedom of Information Act 2000 and I uphold your original
response.  The reasons for this are:
 

Exemption Reason why it applies
The information contains the personal data of
Section 40(2) – Personal third parties which to release would lead to
information us being in breach of the General Data
Protection Regulations/Data Protection Act
2018 as quoted in your response. 
The information has been provided to the
Section 41(1) – Information Council for which there is a duty of
provided in confidence confidence to Uber and release it could result
in Uber taking legal action against the
Council.
To release the information would affect the
commercial interests of Uber.  To release such
information could benefit a rival company to
Uber and again could result in legal action
Section 43(2) – Commercial against the Council.  Additionally, it could
interests affect the commercial relationship that the
Council have with Uber, which would not only
jeopardise the activities undertaken by the
Council’s Licensing Service, but could also
lead to an effect on the wider general public.

 
I have noted that your response has stated that Section 40(2) is an
absolute exemption under the FOI Act, however, this is not correct. 
Section 40(2) is a qualified exemption which requires a Public Interest
Test to be carried out to determine whether or not the information should
be released to you.  Having said this, Section 43 is also a qualified
exemption and therefore a Public Interest Test was carried out in your
response.  Having reviewed the Public Interest Test, I am satisfied tha
this has been done correctly and again I uphold the decision within the
Public Interest to withhold the information.
 
In this response to your internal review, I would also like to address the
comments you have raised below:
 
“This states that the information required is also subject to S40 (1) and
the information that I request is not my information” - Please note, that
Section 40(1) was not quoted in your Freedom of Information response, it
is in fact Section 40(2) which applies to the personal information of a
third party and not yourself.
 
“Because a communication has been labeled confidential, does not give it
the right to be treat as such, or the whole process of the FOI system
would be a complete mockery” – please note, the information is not
labelled as confidential and any such labelling of information does not
automatically exempt information under the Freedom of information Act. 
All information is considered on a case by case basis to determine if
Section 41(1) applies as it was with your request.
 
In conclusion, I uphold the exemptions quoted in your Freedom of
Information response and I am satisfied that the Freedom of Information
Act has been applied correctly.  I appreciate that this may not be the
response you were hoping for but if you remain dissatisfied with the
outcome of your internal review, you can contact the Information
Commissioners Office. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, telephone 0303 123 1113, or for further
details see their website [1]www.ico.org.uk
 
Kind Regards
 
Joelle Taylor
Information Management Officer
Business Change and Information Solutions (BCIS)
Resources Portfolio, Sheffield City Council
Email: [email address]
Postal Address: Sheffield City Council,  PO Box 1283, Sheffield S1 1UJ

show quoted sections

FOI, Sheffield City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Ward,

 

I am writing in response to your request for the correspondence between
the City Council and Uber between April and December 2018. 

 

We responded to your request on November 9^th 2018 and provided copies of
the correspondence, subject to redactions.  You asked for an internal
review and we responded to uphold the redactions under Sections 40, 41 and
43 of the FOI Act.  You subsequently contacted the Information
Commissioner’s Office and I have reviewed the case accordingly. 

 

I have spoken to you on several occasions during this review and the first
thing that was apparent is that we do not have the detailed journey time
data you specifically requested.  I understand why you thought it was held
because our correspondence with Uber includes a request for such data;
however, what we actually hold is the journey data for two journeys, which
show what data is collected via the Uber App.  You have asked for a copy
of that and we have in turn contacted Uber to see if they are prepared to
release a redacted version of the document.  Uber has confirmed they will
consider our request and let us know. 

 

I also reviewed the correspondence we disclosed and decided that some of
the discussions held between the City Council and Uber can be disclosed,
but also upheld the decision not to disclose the reports that Uber
provided (including details of their App) or the list of their active
drivers; this information has been refused under the exemptions of Section
41 and 43 and 40 as per the original refusal in November. 

 

I trust this answers your query, but please get back in touch with me if
you need to. I shall update the Information Commissioner’s Office of this
response. 

 

Finally, thank you for your patience whilst this matter was reviewed.. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Mark

 

Mark Jones

Data Protection Officer / Senior Information Management Officer

Business Change and Information Solutions (BCIS)

Resources Portfolio, Sheffield City Council

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Sheffield City Council

Dear Mr Ward,

 

I am writing to confirm the position with the information that we hold,
but was refused to you under sections 40, 41 and 43 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  Following our discussion, the Council contacted
Uber to clarify whether it would be possible to provide a redacted version
of the withheld documents; however, Uber has confirmed they maintain the
position to exempt the information and, after careful review, we have
chosen to uphold that decision.  Hence the refusal issued to you on
November has been upheld.  I have contacted the Information Commissioner
Office’s caseworker.

 

As before, thank you for your patience whilst this matter has been
reviewed. 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mark

 

Mark Jones

Data Protection Officer / Senior Information Management Officer

Business Change and Information Solutions (BCIS)

Resources Portfolio, Sheffield City Council

 

 

From: Jones Mark (BCIS) On Behalf Of FOI
Sent: 16 May 2019 07:53
To: FOI; Lee Ward
Subject: RE: Internal review response FOI 1195 - RE: Review Request –
Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI / 1195

 

Dear Mr Ward,

 

I am writing in response to your request for the correspondence between
the City Council and Uber between April and December 2018. 

 

We responded to your request on November 9^th 2018 and provided copies of
the correspondence, subject to redactions.  You asked for an internal
review and we responded to uphold the redactions under Sections 40, 41 and
43 of the FOI Act.  You subsequently contacted the Information
Commissioner’s Office and I have reviewed the case accordingly. 

 

I have spoken to you on several occasions during this review and the first
thing that was apparent is that we do not have the detailed journey time
data you specifically requested.  I understand why you thought it was held
because our correspondence with Uber includes a request for such data;
however, what we actually hold is the journey data for two journeys, which
show what data is collected via the Uber App.  You have asked for a copy
of that and we have in turn contacted Uber to see if they are prepared to
release a redacted version of the document.  Uber has confirmed they will
consider our request and let us know. 

 

I also reviewed the correspondence we disclosed and decided that some of
the discussions held between the City Council and Uber can be disclosed,
but also upheld the decision not to disclose the reports that Uber
provided (including details of their App) or the list of their active
drivers; this information has been refused under the exemptions of Section
41 and 43 and 40 as per the original refusal in November. 

 

I trust this answers your query, but please get back in touch with me if
you need to. I shall update the Information Commissioner’s Office of this
response. 

 

Finally, thank you for your patience whilst this matter was reviewed.. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Mark

 

Mark Jones

Data Protection Officer / Senior Information Management Officer

Business Change and Information Solutions (BCIS)

Resources Portfolio, Sheffield City Council

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Sheffield City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Ward,

 

I am writing as a follow up to your request.  Having discussed the case
further with the Information Commissioner’s Office, I have attached a
revised copy of the documents that we released earlier this year. 

 

The changes include:

 

Ø  the images on pages 15-16 and 70-71, which had not displayed when the
emails were first downloaded and disclosed

Ø  reference to a driver revocation on page 66

Ø  reference to complain numbers on page 81

 

The documents still include redactions for the following:

 

Ø  Enforcement Intelligence Report – pages 21-25.  For context, a
transcript of the Context and Objectives is as follows: “Objectives of the
intelligence report: Identify when and where Uber has typically seen the
most demand from June to the September period 20918 so far; Use data to
show key hotpots in Sheffield; Help position enforcement teams at the best
times / locations to increase oversight whilst minimising resource
requirements”

Ø  Uber Correspondence with the Interim Head of Licensing – pages 28-30,
which provides a summary of the travel times and the visuals of the Uber
App to track a journey from start to finish.  As mentioned previously Uber
only provided 2 examples of journeys, which one has been transcribed (see
attached) because Uber consider the information to be of their commercial
interest and confidential, to which they have stated on more than one
occasion to us.

Ø  Uber Correspondence Interim Head of Licensing – pages 32-37, which
details the booking systems and the shows pictures of the UBER App that is
used.  Please note these pictures are not the same pictures that are
available by UBER on their web page and have not been disclosed because of
commercial concerns.

Ø  Uber driver details – pages 50-65, which details the name of the
drivers and vehicle details, which is personal data.

 

As mentioned to you previously, we do not hold the details of all the
journeys made by Uber.

 

I hope the above is of some assistance to you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mark

 

Mark Jones

Data Protection Officer / Senior Information Management Officer

Business Change and Information Solutions (BCIS)

Resources Portfolio, Sheffield City Council

 

Email: [1][email address

Postal Address: Sheffield City Council,  PO Box 1283, Sheffield S1 1UJ

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Sheffield City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Ward,

 

I am writing as a follow up to your request to attach the transcript for
the journey time information for the UBER trips. The first you have had,
but we should have also provided the second at the same time.

 

Please accept my apology for its delay.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mark

 

Mark Jones

Data Protection Officer / Senior Information Management Officer

Business Change and Information Solutions (BCIS)

Resources Portfolio, Sheffield City Council

 

[mobile number]

Email: [1][email address

Postal Address: Sheffield City Council,  PO Box 1283, Sheffield S1 1UJ

 

 

This Email, and any attachments, may contain non-public information and is
intended solely for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may
contain sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled
accordingly. If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author
immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose,
distribute, copy, print or rely on any of the information contained in it
or attached, and all copies must be deleted immediately. Whilst we take
reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, any attachments
to this Email may nevertheless contain viruses which our anti-virus
software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out your own
anti-virus checks before opening any documents. Sheffield City Council
will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses
emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this e-mail

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]