Wycombe Council 'decline' FOI request...

prjohnsonnn10

I posted this originally in the Metrolink thread but thought it would be better on a new thread ....

So being a Wycombe resident i thought i would pursue WDC for full details of all correspondance on the changes made by WDC to the off street car parks . I asked for all correspondance between them and BPA and DVLA and also Council minutes concerning the matter. I got the following reply from them today............ v interesting !! They are trying to cite commercial sensitivities amongst other things - note that i have NOT asked for any of the contracts signed between parties , but simply asked for correspondance between WDC, BPA and DVLA on this matter.


If Bazter/ Bargepole and co are on here wld appreciate a steer on how to respond to this as plainly they need a firm reply from me to put them straight . I am not about to be fobbed off !!

...........Dear Mr xxxxxx

Thanks you for your email of 4 December where you requested information about communications with the BPA and DVLA. We do hold information falling within the terms of your request, however we need more time to consider this.

I wish to advise you that the following exemptions apply to the information that you have requested:

s.36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) Effective conduct of Public Affairs
s.42 – Legal Professional Privilege
s.43(2) – Commercial interests

By virtue of section10(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 where public authorities have to consider the balance of the public interest in relation to a request, they do not have to comply, they do not have to comply with the request until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances.

We have not yet reached a decision on the balance of the public interest . Due to the need to consider, in all the circumstances of the case, where the balance of the public interest lies in relation to the information that you have requested, we will not be able to respond to your request in full within 20 working days. I hope to let you have a response by 29 January 2015.

If you are unhappy with the way Wycombe District Council has handled your request etc etc etc blah blah blah.....


Letter was signed by the Parking Services Head - Robin Evans

Aaron_Aadvark

I think they will struggle to justify the exemptions.

Concluding an unlawful contract cannot be an effective conduct of public affairs. Similarly, there can be no commercial interest to be protected in an unlawful contract. Legal professional privilege only applies to discussion with lawyers.

Armorica

There is nothing to reply to. They have simply said they won't be able to reply within 28 days. Wait until the end of the month.

If they then say they are applying the exemptions, then follow it up.

One major problem is that you've made a very very wide request. It would have been much easier to ask e.g. for council minutes (which is discrete) and then do a follow up request for correspondance etc.

Not only contracts are commercial. A lot more of the associated documents will be sensitive as well.

bazster

The ICO position on this sort of thing is that the occasional commercially-sensitive clause, sentence or paragraph in a document is not an excuse for withholding the entire document.

The legal professional privilege thing is utter baloney. If the documents include correspondence with solicitors (and they haven't said this is the case) then LPP belongs to the client (i.e. the council) not to the solicitors and the council is perfectly entitled to waive this. What matters in terms of whether to apply this exemption is the content of that correspondence, not merely whether it is subject to LPP.

IMHO they'll get nowhere with Effective Conduct of Public Affairs either. The whole point is that their conduct of public affairs has been far from effective, and they can't hide this behind technical exemptions.

I'd write back to them now making points similar to the above and demanding an internal review of their refusal to provide the information within the statutory timeframe.

And since you are a Wycombe resident you should complain to your district councillors about both the council's shameful conduct over this affair and this pathetic attempt at a cover-up.

bazster

Armorica wrote: »

One major problem is that you've made a very very wide request. It would have been much easier to ask e.g. for council minutes (which is discrete) and then do a follow up request for correspondance etc.

You don't need to FOI council minutes, they're in the public domain anyway.

Armorica wrote: »

Not only contracts are commercial. A lot more of the associated documents will be sensitive as well.

As stated above, that does not mean that entire documents are exempt, just the commercially-sensitive bits.

Fergie76

Have a read of my thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5049715

I FOI'd a NHS Trust for a commercial contract, they originally refused the release of the contract due to commercial sensitivity. I appealed the decision and was then given a copy of the contract.

It's all in my thread, I can't post the actual post, as I am on my phone.

It may be of help to you.

bazster

As for correspondence with DVLA, you could of course FOI DVLA for copies of that! IMO you should also FOI both the council and the DfT for correspondence with DfT and/or the Minister.

And for correspondence between the DfT and DVLA concerning Wycombe District Council!

What might be particularly interesting is a very specific FOI to the council requesting the number of contractual PCN's issued but not paid where the identity of both driver and keeper is unknown and which the council has been unable to pursue due to being denied keeper details by DVLA.

And at the same time ask the council whether DVLA is denying all requests for keeper details made for or on behalf of WDC, and if so how many statutory Penalty Charges are unpaid where the council has been unable to pursue due to being denied keeper details by DVLA?

I suspect the local paper would find that answer quite entertaining!

As Fergie has so ably demonstrated, you will penetrate the cover-up if you make it clear to all concerned that you simply will not go away!

prjohnsonnn10

My resposne to them and put onto the FOI site today.....

Dear Mr Evans,

Thank you for your response . I note that you are taking further
time to consider this request – in the event that WDC decide to not
release this information then yes I will refer this to Internal
Review and then onwards to ICO if I need to. I would fully expect
an independent body to acknowledge that this information being
requested is plainly in the public interest and is NOT commercially
sensitive in the way that you seem to be claiming. Specifically as
regards the 3 points that you make :

s.36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) Effective conduct of Public Affairs – an
interesting aspect to raise by WDC ! I think that any reasonable
person looking at the actions, behaviour and cost incurred by the
council here in changing the operation of the off street parking
without fully thinking through the implications would conclude that
it is IN the public interest to show us the facts and decision
making behind it. The fact that WDC have been prevented from
obtaining keeper details by DVLA suggests that mistakes have been
made and public money is being lost due to incorrect management of
the change process. Or to put it more bluntly, WDC being excluded
from a parking trade body and being prevented from obtaining
information by a government body (DVLA) and also concluding a
(potentially) unlawful contract, cannot be an ‘effective conduct of
public affairs’ can it ........

s.42 – Legal Professional Privilege – I’m not sure who drafted this
content of your letter but this is utter baloney. You should know
that if the documents include correspondence with solicitors for
instance then LPP belongs to the client (i.e. YOU the council) and
NOT to the solicitors !! WDC is perfectly entitled to waive this
and would be expected to when being asked for information relevant
to the ‘council tax paying’ public’. What matters here is whether
to apply any LPP exemption to the content of the correspondence,
not merely whether it is subject to LPP.

s.43(2) – Commercial interests – as you should be aware, the ICO
has found on several occasions already that this is does not apply
to councils and public bodies when asked to release information
under the FOI regime. Not least of all is the fact that WDC would
presumably have to try and explain exactly who or what body they
are in competition with and which would render the information
‘’commercially sensitive’ ! You are operating public car parks on
behalf of the public and designed to provide a service to visitors
to the town for which you receive a parking fee to cover your
costs. The ICO would almost certainly agree with this and find in
our favour as he has done on several occasions already.

I therefore expect WDC to release all of information requested
following your further deliberations.

Yours sincerely,

prjohnsonnn10

.....and sent this supplementary FOI as per your suggestions chaps..... thanks for the advice. Lets see how they respond.

Dear Mr Evans,

I have added this supplementary request below to my original one as
I believe it is more efficient for you to consider this all as one
exercise and would appreciate it if you include this information in
your process now and deliberations.

1 – please provide all copies of correspondence between the council
and Dept for Transport and any ministers or senior government
persons on the subject of the changes to WDC parking practises.

2 – please supply details of the number of contractual PCN's issued
but not paid and which the council has been unable to pursue due to
being denied keeper details by DVLA.

3 - please advise whether DVLA is denying all requests for keeper
details made for or on behalf of WDC, and if so how many statutory
Penalty Charges are unpaid where the council has been unable to
pursue due to being denied keeper details by DVLA

Many thanks

Yours sincerely,

bargepole

I discovered through a Google search, that WDC have spent £1.2m on ANPR equipment and maintenance, which they started to roll out in March last year.


I also have written confirmation from the DVLA that they are not supplying keeper data to WDC, on instructions from the DfT.


In my correspondence with WDC, it emerged that they took advice from 'leading counsel' before implementing this scheme. That advice was clearly wrong, but Robin Evans and the rest of the WDC Parking team are in denial about it.


I made a further complaint to the District Auditor, about the waste of public momey involved. The latest on this is that the WDC people had a meeting at the DfT offices on 29th October, and are now 'considering their response'. In other words, they have been told that their quasi-private parking regime should be scrapped, and they must go back to statutory enforcement under the TMA.


The local paper, the Bucks Free Press, has been made aware of all the facts and evidence about this, but for some reason has decided not to run the story.

Hot_Bring

bargepole wrote: »

The local paper, the Bucks Free Press, has been made aware of all the facts and evidence about this, but for some reason has decided not to run the story.

I guess WDC are still 'Making Their Mind Up' ? Or living 'In a Land of Make Believe' but then again, 'The Camera Never Lies'.

Sorry .... I'll get my coat.