Copy of contract between UKPC and Bucks Healthcare Trust here...

Stroma

This has got to be the all time classic, I have a copy of the FOI request as well, I may post it up in all sorts of sites out of the UK just for the fun of it ! Lets see if they are successful in trying to get this out of the public domain

trisontana

Try Nutsville. That's hosted in the USA.

Coupon-mad

Philter wrote: »

UKPC have threatened www.whatdotheyknow.com with legal action for publishing the contract between UKPC and Bucks Healthcare Trust (the Trust used the website to respond to an FOI request by G Bozzino). www.whatdotheyknow.com have (hopefully temporarily) removed the entire request and response, including the contract, whilst they consider their legal position.

FAO UKPC: I know that you are reading this thread. I have a copy of the contract, which I obtained via email from Bucks Healthcare Trust prior to its publication on www.whatdotheyknow.com. The Trust had tried to say that it had a Section 41 (commercial in confidence) exemption, but I pointed out to them that as it is the product of a negotiation between 2 parties it is not; hence they had to release it, which they did. I will be using it when I write to the Chief Exec of the Trust, as well as the OFT, Trading Standards, and my MP, to point out to them several areas in which the contract is unlawful. It's a good thing that you have indemnified the Trust against any legal action arising from the contract, because I suspect there will be some.

Philter = legend!!!!!!! :T:T

Stroma

We should be doing a FOI request on all public bodies relying upon these parking companies

Philter

I've submitted a new FOI request to the Trust:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_charges_9/new

FAO UKPC: If you bully https://www.whatdotheyknow.com into taking this down, I'll just submit it via email, copied to the Chief Exec and my MP, explaining that you've bullied whatdotheyknow.com into taking the request down, and giving my opinion as to why that might be. This is a public sector contract, it's already now in the public domain, and it has no Section 41 (commercial in confidence) exemption because:

"The Information Tribunal has confirmed that information contained in a contract between a public authority and a third party represents the conclusion of negotiations between the two parties, and as such is jointly created rather than being obtained by the public authority from the contractor. It is therefore not confidential information."

http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guidance_index/~/media/documents/library/Freedom_of_Information/Detailed_specialist_guides/AWARENESS_GUIDANNCE_5_ANNEXE_V3_07_03_08.ashx

Even if it did have a Section 41 exemption there are a number of circumstances in which the release of the information is justified, they include:

"• information revealing misconduct/mismanagement of public funds

• information which shows that a particular public contract is bad value for money

• where the information would correct untrue statements or misleading acts on the part of public authorities or high-profile individuals

• where a substantial length of time has passed since the information was obtained and the harm which would have been caused by disclosure at the time the information was obtained has depleted"

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/information-access-rights/foi/foi-exemption-s41.pdf

You have no leg to stand in, in contracting with a public body you leave yourselves open to public scrutiny under law. Legally, the Trust had to release the contract, which is why they did, albeit grumpily. My request contains, and is based upon, information now released into the public domain, it therefore does not come under the 'Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations'.

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Philter what did ukpc Say?

Ukpc speak more cr*p then comes out of a cows rear end

They told the website that although a copy of the contract had been issued under the FOI act that the website should not be publishing it. They may have been trying to invoke the 'Re-use of Public Sector Regulations', but that won't help them because it only relates to using copyrighted information without permission. The contract is not copyrighted information, or information which needs licensing, it's a formal agreement between a public sector body and a private contractor, the result of negotiations (supposedly), and its publication infringes nobody's intellectual property rights. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com is run by a charity called MySociety.

"Q. I have spent time and money producing this information. Why should I allow others to re-use it?

A. Information prepared as part of a public sector organisations public task has been gathered at the taxpayers' expense and for their benefit. As such, the taxpayer has a right to access and re-use that information."

"Q. What happens if my organisation does not comply?

A. Non-compliance is not an option. The PSI Regulations impose a legal requirement upon public sector organisations.

If an organisation fails to comply it lays itself open to challenge under the complaints process and, potentially, through the courts."

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/policies/psi-faqs.htm#18

Philter

I've had a reply to my latest FOI request to Bucks Healthcare Trust...

Here is a link to the thread on https://www.whatdotheyknow.com

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_charges_9#incoming-408154

Here is the actual reply:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/164822/response/408154/attach/html/3/Response%20Letter%202013%20165.doc.html

Here are my questions, and their replies:

"1. On 26 Apr 13 you responded to my FOI request (FOI2013-048) by providing me with a copy of the contract the Trust has with UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC). The contract is undated. Please tell me when the contract began.

The contract the Trust has with UK Parking Control was initiated from August 2011.

2. The above contract states that:

"The client shall receive 10% of all revenues received from PCN's issued, this will be paid to the Client on a regular basis accompanied by a commission statement".

You are the client, please tell me how much money the Trust has received from UKPC since the contract began.

Aug 2011 - Mar 2012 No receipt
Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 £9,333 Gross
Apr 2013 to date £1,810 Gross

3. When questioned about the discrepancy between the Parking Charges issued at Wycombe Hospital (£100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) and Stoke Mandeville Hospital (£60 reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days) you stated:

"...we would also like to clarify that the PCN charges at Wycombe Hospital are identical to those at Stoke Mandeville; an error had been made when a reference to a fee of £100 was previously stated."

I have noticed that you have now corrected all signage at Wycombe Hospital by placing "£60" stickers over any references to £100. Please tell me how long the signage made reference to £100 and how many people were issued with Parking Charge Notices during the period in which the signage erroneously made reference to a fee of £100, and also how many people paid £100 (or the reduced fee of £60 if paid within 14 days). You will have this information because you issue the tickets for UKPC to process, and you take a 10% cut from the Parking Charges.

New signs arrived at Wycombe Hospital Site from 1st October 2012. UKPC increased prices, however the Trust had not approved this change, and UKPC were instructed to re-instate the correct charge at the beginning of January. Information provided to the Trust indicates that nil £100 charges were issued.

4. The Trust is aware that under Contract Law a provider of services may only claim an amount in liquidated damages equivalent to actual loss or a pre-estimate of loss if a contract is breached; they may not demand a punitive sum. It is very obvious that Parking Charges issued at Trust hospitals are not genuine pre-estimates of loss, nor do they reflect actual loss. If they were a true reflection of loss UKPC would not be able to, amongst other things, pay the Trust 10% of all revenues received from PCNs, and would not be able to reduce the Parking Charge by 50% after 14 days. Liquidated damages due to breach of contract are not VAT liable, therefore if the Parking Charge Notices issued at Trust hospitals are liquidated damages reflecting actual loss due to breach of contract, as they must be under UK law, and has been claimed in your response to FOI-2013-048, then no VAT should be paid on them. If the Parking Charges are anything other than liquidated damages reflecting actual loss due to breach of contract then they are VAT liable.

Do you and/or UKPC pay VAT on revenues received from Parking Charge Notices issued at Trust hospitals?

UKPC has not made any information available. The Trust pay VAT on parking charge receipts from UKPC.

5. The contract makes reference to issuing tickets to 'vehicles not displaying a valid road fund licence'. The issue of road tax is not within the remit of a private parking company. Please explain how the Trust or UKPC can make an actual loss if a vehicle is parked in a Trust property without displaying a valid road fund licence.

The Trust does not issue parking charge notices for vehicles that are not displaying a valid road fund licence on Trust property

6. How many vehicles have been issued tickets for not displaying a valid road fund licence?

None.

7. The contracts states that:

"...The Contractor shall then obtain vehicle owner details from the DVLA and issue a PCN to the offender for the sum of £60 decreasing to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue"

Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, UKPC may not contact the DVLA requesting vehicle owner details until 28 days after the PCN was issued. The contract implies that the DVLA are contacted before even 14 days have passed. Since 1 Oct 2012 how many times has UKPC requested owner details from the DVLA before the 28 day period was up?

UKPC does not contact DVLA until the 28 day period has elapsed."

So...the Trust pays VAT on its 10% cut of the Parking Charges, which means they cannot actually be liquidated damages - which is what the Trust says that the Parking Charges are. They also say that UKPC does not contact the DVLA until after 28 days, yet the contract says:

"...The Contractor shall then obtain vehicle owner details from the DVLA and issue a PCN to the offender for the sum of £60 decreasing to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue"

Also, the trust made £9,333 gross from parking charges last tax year, which is 10% of the total paid to UKPC. So UKPC made £93 330 from the Trust's 3 hospitals last year!!!

It's also interesting that UKPC increased its parking charges at Wycombe Hospital without telling the Trust, who told them to bring the charges back down from £100 to £60. My previous FOI request revealed that UKPC claim that the parking charges cover admin and office costs despite the fact that UKPC don't issue the tickets, they just process them. UKPC have no interest in the land at Trust hospitals and don't have any operators there...the Trust self-tickets and sends the tickets to UKPC. So apparently their admin and office costs arbitrarily increased from £60 per ticket to £100 per ticket when POFA came in, but they were then able to bring them back down again when the Trust told them to. LOL! Bullsh*t.

If anyone wants to question the Trust further on its answers you can do so via the thread I've started on https://www.whatdotheyknow.com (link at the top of this post).