Dear westminster council

Having read the following legal papers,
LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD
MR JUSTICE MADDISON
Warren Djanogly –V—City of Westminster

I wish you to send me, or direct me to the website that contains the outstanding information identified as not have been available during the court case.

Namely,
“any evidence on which the officers of the Council relied to support the assertions made in reports to members on or after 31 March 2009 that there continued to be a high and ever-increasing demand for on-street parking within the Westminster area”

Para 43 of the findings of the court case,
During the course of the current proceedings, the claimant had been seeking further information from the defendant. It is the duty of the defendant, within reason, to give proper disclosure of those matters which explain and justify its decision-making process. The Authority has responded properly to those requests in particular in a document dated 3 June 2010. One of the claimant's requests was for any evidence on which the officers of the Council relied to support the assertions made in reports to members on or after 31 March 2009 that there continued to be a high and ever-increasing demand for on-street parking within the Westminster area. At the time of the request the staff who could respond to the request were on leave until 7 June 2010. The defendant intended to provide a response on the return of their staff from leave. That response has not been forthcoming.

I bring your attention to the following point, with the particular intension of ensuring that you do not think that some kind of flim/flam excuse about the information not being available will be accepted.

“The defendant intended to provide a response on the return of their staff from leave. That response has not been forthcoming”.

A second point I wish you to answer is, that you Identify the date that Mr Djanogly or his legal representatives requested the information in question, and the date on which the member of the council who was to provide the information went on leave, and when they returned to work.

Yours faithfully,

spannermonkey

Westminster City Council

Confirmation of Freedom Of Information Request

Thank you for your request for information.

Your request details have now been recorded and will be passed on to the
appropriate Divisional Records Officer for action.

This Freedom Of Information Request was based on the following
information:

Name: spannermonkey
Address: See email address
Email: [FOI #96699 email]
Telephone:
Request Details: Dear westminster council

Having read the following legal papers,
LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD
MR JUSTICE MADDISON
Warren Djanogly -V-City of Westminster

I wish you to send me, or direct me to the website that contains
the outstanding information identified as not have been available
during the court case.

Namely,
"any evidence on which the officers of the Council relied to
support the assertions made in reports to members on or after 31
March 2009 that there continued to be a high and ever-increasing
demand for on-street parking within the Westminster area"

Para 43 of the findings of the court case,
During the course of the current proceedings, the claimant had been
seeking further information from the defendant. It is the duty of
the defendant, within reason, to give proper disclosure of those
matters which explain and justify its decision-making process. The
Authority has responded properly to those requests in particular in
a document dated 3 June 2010. One of the claimant's requests was
for any evidence on which the officers of the Council relied to
support the assertions made in reports to members on or after 31
March 2009 that there continued to be a high and ever-increasing
demand for on-street parking within the Westminster area. At the
time of the request the staff who could respond to the request were
on leave until 7 June 2010. The defendant intended to provide a
response on the return of their staff from leave. That response has
not been forthcoming.

I bring your attention to the following point, with the particular
intension of ensuring that you do not think that some kind of
flim/flam excuse about the information not being available will be
accepted.

"The defendant intended to provide a response on the return of
their staff from leave. That response has not been forthcoming".

A second point I wish you to answer is, that you Identify the date
that Mr Djanogly or his legal representatives requested the
information in question, and the date on which the member of the
council who was to provide the information went on leave, and when
they returned to work.

FOI Reference Number: 8135
Target Completion Date: 12/01/2012

Please do not reply to this email.
This is an automatic response to your request, and replies to this message
will not be actioned.

If you need to contact Westminster City Council regarding your request,
please contact:

mailto:[Westminster City Council request email]
Tel:020 7641 3921

show quoted sections

Davies, Hayley, Westminster City Council

Dear Mr Spannermonkey

 

The issue of the extent of the evidence relied upon by the City Council to
support the assertion you refer to was raised by Mr Djanogly and his
representatives in the course of the hearing into his appeal against the
decision of the High Court. The matter is referred to in the judgment of
Lord Justice Maurice Kay at paragraphs 18 to 21, where the information you
request is set out. The judgment is available on the internet here:

 

[1]http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/...

 

According to our records the information was requested in a letter dated
21 May and the two officers in question were on annual leave between 28
May and 7 June.

 

If you have any queries then please contact me.

 

Regards

 

Hayley Davies

Litigation

 

show quoted sections

Having read your reply, it appears that you have failed to grasp my request.

DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE OF THINKING THAT I AM GOING TO STOP UNTIL I GET MY ANSWERS.

I repeat my FOI request....

I wish you to send me, or direct me to the website that contains
the outstanding information identified as not have been available
during the court case.

Namely,
"any evidence on which the officers of the Council relied to
support the assertions made in reports to members on or after 31
March 2009 that there continued to be a high and ever-increasing
demand for on-street parking within the Westminster area"

I would expect this information to have been collated by year, covering the period from the introduction of the much talked about congestion charge, to the date of the motorcycle parking tax being made permanent.

(Any data recorded since the imposition of the charge along with the methodology used to collect it would be useful).

The report of each year I would expect to contain a month by month report of the number of motorcycles COUNTED in a cross section of motorcycle on street parking bays, along with a methodology report, and who carried out the actual counting.

This is the minimum level of detail that I would expect to be in a report that the council would present to the public. To PROVE "that there continued to be a high and ever-increasing demand for on-street parking within the Westminster area".

Your references are nothing more than drivel that I heard first time in court, having been in court for ALL the days of both the original case and the appeal.

I look forward to you sending me the FACTS AND FIGURES that WCC officers state they have but did not release in time for the court date.

I look forward to you sending the facts and figures, as opposed to trying to be evasive. Please feel free to underline any KEY DATA contained in the paragraphs below that you choose to direct me to, and email it back to me.

Or you could just do your job and note that the court finding below, say nothing more than I already know, namely that to date you have failed to produces ANY FACT OR FIGURES.

(1) Increasing demand
1.
18.It is common ground that increasing demand, if evidentially well-founded, would justify charging. It is the obvious way to dampen excess demand. Mr Coppel's submission is that although increasing demand had been a relevant consideration at the time of the Experimental Order, particularly because of the introduction and anticipated extension of the congestion charge zone, it had fallen out of the picture as an evidence-based consideration in relation to the 2010 Order. The Divisional Court emphatically rejected this submission.
19.The case for Mr Djanogly is that, notwithstanding assertions of increasing demand at the time when the 2010 Order was under consideration, hard evidence is conspicuously lacking and when it has been requested in correspondence nothing has been forthcoming. A chart showing the number of permits issued during the period of the Experimental Order is fairly flat at about 6000, save for a Christmas and one other (probably weather-related) dip. The last report to the Cabinet Member before the 2010 Order was made stated:
"The uptake currently does not justify commissioning on-street studies to identify any potential new on-street space."

As against this, the Council point to Mr Djanogly's first witness statement:

"The impact of the [Experimental] Scheme on motorbike users has been considerable. A large number of parking spaces have been taken away, as now motorbikes are only allowed to park on-street in designated bays. This has meant that motorbike users often have a wasted journey as they cannot find somewhere to park, or have to park a considerable distance away which is inconvenient and time-consuming. Even if you buy a permit before you leave the house … you are not guaranteed a parking space. Often motorbike users waste money by buying a permit before they have left the house and then find that there are no spaces to park in …" (My emphasis).

20.In his third witness statement Mr Djanogly described a one-day survey which he had conducted among the members of his association on 8 June 2010. It invited comparison of various periods. It supported the proposition of increased demand between the twelve months prior to the introduction of the Experimental Order and the seventeen months of the Experimental Order. Mr Djanogly attributed it to the reduction in available spaces. In any event, in response to the Council's consultation exercise, several hundred objections referred to an insufficiency of spaces. The Council's evidence is that, as a general proposition, it aims for an occupancy of designated parking spaces that does not exceed 85%, so that users have a reasonable chance of finding a space. The response to the consultation was that:
"Occupancy levels City-wide since the Scheme was introduced have been in excess of 90%."

21.It is unrealistic to expect that the statistical evidence (to dignify it) would be scientific. There are a number of reasons why it should be seen as limited. For one thing a bald calculation of the number of permits sold is not in itself a precise reflection of demand. For example, it takes no account of motorcyclists who wanted to park in a particular area at a particular time but were unable to find a space and had to park elsewhere. In this way, it also conceals the likelihood of excess demand at particular times of the day. The fact is that actual occupancy exceeded the 85% which underlay the Council's working assumption and there was anecdotal evidence, not least from objectors, of "actual increased demand and anticipated increased demand" (per Pitchford LJ at paragraph 45). In my view there was a rational basis for this analysis. If it is a permissible analysis, as I consider it to be, then the use of charging is justified as a demand-suppressant pursuant to section 122(1).

Yours faithfully,

spannermonkey

Dear Westminster City Council,

the information I requested in my FOI, should be available via the legal department, and/or the parking department, and as you have failed to answer my request in the time scale that you are legally reqired to, i am asking for an internal review.

Yours faithfully,

spannermonkey

FOI, Westminster City Council

Dear spannermonkey,

 

Thank  you for your email below.

 

We will look into your query and will aim to respond by 20th February
2012.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Knowledge & Information Management Team

 

Westminster City Hall

10th Floor East

64 Victoria Street

London

SW1E 6QP

T: 0207 641 3921

F: 0207 641 2872

E: [email address]

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Westminster City Council

Dear Spannermonkey,

 

I am emailing to inform you that the investigation into the handling of
your Freedom of Information request is still in progress.

 

Accordingly, we anticipate being in a position to respond within 10
working days.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Knowledge & Information Management Team

 

Westminster City Hall

10th Floor East

64 Victoria Street

London

SW1E 6QP

T: 0207 641 3921

F: 0207 641 2872

E: [email address]

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI, having waited this long a few days is going to make no difference to me.

However having read in the Evening Standard (1/3/2012)

Councillor Lee Rowley, cabinet member for transport and parking, said: "With the use of scooters rising by over 11 per cent in 2011

In paragraph 5 of my response to your first reply i asked for,

(Any data recorded since the imposition of the charge along with the methodology used to collect it would be useful).

This request was solely meant in the spirit of, if it is to hand, with no great expectation of the council releasing information freely.

Now however, having read that councillor Lee Rowley,start banding around numbers.

It is clear that these figures MUST BE available along with the necessary details needed to make policy decisions, and as such i do now EXPECT THEM to be made available, covering the period from the introduction of the first trial through to the latest data available.

I expect ALL the raw data for every single day that the scheme has been running, this is information that must be available to be able to model the performance of the scheme.

(Including such detail as,
total number of permits checked by CEO's by day,

total number of permits registered for use by day,

break down of permits by engine size for every day,

the total number of permits by type, (weekly, daily, monthly),

and any other raw data available broken down by day, for every single day the the scheme has been running.

Yours sincerely,

spannermonkey

FOI, Westminster City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Spannermonkey,

 

Thank you for your recent request for an Internal Review into the handling
of your Freedom of Information request.

 

Please find the council’s response attached.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Knowledge & Information Management Team

 

Westminster City Hall

10th Floor East

64 Victoria Street

London

SW1E 6QP

T: 0207 641 3921

F: 0207 641 2872

E: [email address]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Westminster City Council

Confirmation of Freedom Of Information Request

Thank you for your request for information.

Your request details have now been recorded and will be passed on to the
appropriate Divisional Records Officer for action.

This Freedom Of Information Request was based on the following
information:

Name: Spannermonkey
Address: See email address
Email: [FOI #96699 email]
Telephone:
Request Details:
I expect ALL the raw data for every single day that the scheme has
been running, this is information that must be available to be able
to model the performance of the scheme.

(Including such detail as,
total number of permits checked by CEO's by day,

total number of permits registered for use by day,

break down of permits by engine size for every day,

the total number of permits by type, (weekly, daily, monthly),

and any other raw data available broken down by day, for every
single day the the scheme has been running.

FOI Reference Number: 8592
Target Completion Date: 02/04/2012

Please do not reply to this email.
This is an automatic response to your request, and replies to this message
will not be actioned.

If you need to contact Westminster City Council regarding your request,
please contact:

mailto:[Westminster City Council request email]
Tel:020 7641 3921

***********************************************************************************
Visit www.GetAheadoftheGames.com to help you plan around travel hotspots in London during the Olympic and Paralympic Games. ***********************************************************************************
Westminster City Council switchboard: +44 20 7641 6000.
www.westminster.gov.uk

show quoted sections

FOI, Westminster City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Spannermonkey,

 

Thank you for your recent request submitted under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

 

Please find the council’s response attached.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Knowledge & Information Management Team

 

Westminster City Hall

10th Floor East

64 Victoria Street

London

SW1E 6QP

T: 0207 641 3921

F: 0207 641 2872

E: [email address]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org