Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

waamo

enfield_freddy wrote: »

however , the DVLA have been passing info to Proserve parking , for a long time knowing that they were NOT a member of a ATA, then said "sorry"

I don't think they have actually said sorry.

Fergie76

Today, I have also (not) recevied a reply to a FOI that they have previously failed to reply to:

Thank you for your letter which was received on the 16 Feb 15.

The complaint part of your letter will be dealt with separately and this correspondence relates soley to the FOI element of your letter.

In your letter you stated "Can you please supply under the FOI Act full unredacted copies of correspondence between the Trust, APCOA and the Trust's Solicitor's where GPEOL has been discussed?"

Any correspondence between a legal advisor and their client is legally priviledged information and we will neither confirm or deny that any such correspondence has taken palce. This is as per section 42 of the FOIA.

Correspondence between APCOA and the Trust where GPEOL has been discussed will take significant work to provide. After consideration we have come to the conclusion that to fulfil this request it will take over 18 hours of work and therefore go over the fees limit. Considering the number of questions already asked and answered as part of the same FOI request process we must refuse this request on the basis that it will breach the fees limit to which we work (up to £450 at £25 per hour). In considering your request we looked at a number of factors that would affect the cost and our ability to provide the information, this include:

- determining whether we hold the information requested;
- locating the information or documents containing the information;
- retrieving such information or documents;
- extracting the information from the document or other information source containing both it and other material not relevant to the request.

However, if you would like to pay the fee that will be generated in complying with your request, as written, then please let us know and we will calculate an accurate invoice for payment before work is undertaken.

We have already supplied significant amounts of information to you.

If you have any questions relating to the content of this letter, then please contact me at your convenience.

Castle

Fergie
Just get somebody else to request the GPEOL from the trust!

Fergie76

That's what I was thinking. I have a few other FOI's lodged with them at the moment and now I am assuing they will respond the same way.

I didn't realise there was a limit on the number of FOI's someone can ask.

Their filing system must be rubbish, if it is going to take over two working days to locate the information.

Should I call their bluff, say I will pay the money so they give me an accurate invoice and then say no thanks? lol

Umkomaas

Put your next request in your wife's name?

Castle

There is a limit to the number of hours/cost as set out in the FOIA2000 Part (12) Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit.
(4)The [Secretary of State] may by regulations provide that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, where two or more requests for information are made to a public authority—
(a)by one person, or
(b)by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign,
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them.

I guess most of those 18 hours were spent looking for the missing contract! My educated guess is that there is no such document showing a GPEOL, so they would have to spend more time creating one!

daveyjp

The refusal to answer due to excessive requests is only valid for 6 months. As others have said get someone else to ask the questions!

Fergie76

Thing is if they werent acting illegal or said at the very start, we hold our hands up, we're wrong and we are going to do x, y and z to rectify it, I would have been happy and there would be no need for the FOIs.

Fergie76

Here is my draft reply to the ICO email I received last week (see post 539):

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your reply dated 4 Mar 15. However, it does raise more questions, which I will deal with below and would also like whatever manager that is dealing with my complaint to take these points in to consideration.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In your reply you state: “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The assessment is that the DVLA is likely to have complied with the DPA on the basis that it considered there was reasonable cause to disclose your details, based on the information it had i.e. the letter from the Trust dated 7 July 2014.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Before you dismiss a complaint, should you not establish that the breach has not occurred, rather than rely on likelihood; just like the DVLA should establish reasonable cause beyond all doubt prior to releasing registered keepers details? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As these private parking companies have electronic access to the DVLA database by virtue of being a member to a club that is run by its members for the benefit of its members, the DVLA do not give consideration to reasonable cause at all. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The letter from the Trust dated 7 Jul 14, is after my parking event, so ignoring the fact, it bears no weight to change the legally binding contract, it is also totally irrelevant.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I notice on your website, you state: “[/FONT]Anyone requesting information should provide evidence to the DVLA which shows why their request is reasonable. Companies who ask for information must always provide details of their business activities. This deters people from pretending to have a reasonable business cause such as recovering money owed for petrol when in fact they want the keeper’s name and address for another purpose. Companies requesting information to enforce parking fees must also provide evidence to show that a parking charge scheme actually exists and that drivers are made aware that the scheme is in force.[FONT=&quot]”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As stated above, these private parking companies have electronic access to the database, no check is every done to ensure the comply with ‘reasonable cause’, so how can they ever comply with the paragraph above from your website? The only definitive way to establish if this reasonable cause exists, is for the DVLA to scrutinise each and every contract. While I am aware this no small task, it will stop the parking companies from trying to rip off people like me.[/FONT]

It's not finished but any constructive suggestions are always welcome or any other points to add.

I'm away to watch the world famous Dundee United Football Club now.

ManxRed

I might be tempted to add that you would require the ICO to confirm that - now the DVLA have been made aware of the fact that APCOA PARKING (UK) Ltd do not, and never have had, reasonable cause to acquire RK data for that site - that they are no longer providing RK data to APCOA for the site in question, and will not provide any data for that site until such time that APCOA have confirmed that the contractual situation has been rectified.