Car Parking charges and false information from Ipserv Ltd

Cardriver45

I tried writing again to Ipserv and asking them to allow me to appeal or provide me with a POPLA code and explained that I had missed the deadline to appeal as I had been unwell with my disability so they should make allowances. As expected they refused but at least it gives me something else extra to show that I did try to resolve the matter if they did decide to take me to court. All they offered was an extra 14 days to pay at the discounted rate.
They said if I had mentioned it earlier they may have considered it reasonable. I don't believe that one.
They said they may refer it to debt recovery if I don't pay by 6th Sep. Ooo I'm so scared (not)

Cardriver45

It's past the statutory 20 working days for the University of Suffolk providing my request for copies of their parking management contract with Ipserv and proof that they put it out to tender. So I will message them on what do they know. Is this what I should say?

Will you tell me what is happening re my request for the contract between yourselves and Ipserv limited for management of your North Campus car park and proof that you put the contract out to tender before awarding it to Ipserv that I submitted on 29th July 2021? By law, this request should have been responded to by 27th August and I request that it is done so in the next 5 days or I shall be reporting this matter to the Information Commissioners Office 

KeithP

Cardriver45 said:

It's past the statutory 20 working days for the University of Suffolk providing my request for copies of their parking management contract with Ipserv and proof that they put it out to tender.

A .gov.uk website does say...

When you’ll get a response

The organisation should send you the information within 20 working days of receiving your request. Some schools are allowed more time during school holidays.

I wonder whether universities are classed as 'schools' in this context?
I.e. are universities also allowed extra time to process FOI requests outside term time?

I don't know the answer, but might be worth checking.

D_P_Dance

Why should debt collection charges apply?  IIMU that they are unlawful, have you read this?

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Le_Kirk

D_P_Dance said:

Why should debt collection charges apply?  IIMU that they are unlawful, have you read this?

@D_P_Danceyou have missed out the link and what does IIMU stand for?  I've been looking for ages but it doesn't appear in any of the standard glossaries, not even Auntie Google could find it.

KeithP

IIMU = Foreign Office speak for it is my understanding.  

D_P_Dance

No it was a common usenet abreviation back in the day, spiel now added.

Cardriver45

This is the reply I received from the Uni for my request for the contract and proof that the contract was put out to tender. What is the advice on what I should do now, please?
Should I just say to the LGO that the council hasn't shown proof that they have a contract and that it was put out to tender and just let the LGO investigate it?

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST

I refer to your request for information received on 30 July 2021 which is being managed under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Your request has now been considered and I can confirm this data is commercially sensitive and therefore cannot share under exemption section 43.

If you have any queries then please contact me.

If you are not satisfied with the University’s response and / or our reasoning set-out above, you have the right to request an internal review. A request for a review should:

Umkomaas

I'd ask them which elements of the contract do they believe are 'commercially sensitive' as it is highly unlikely that the whole of the contract is commercially sensitive.  Limited redaction can be applied, provided it doesn't overwhelm the detail. 

State that their response will determine whether you request a review, or seek assistance from the Information Commissioner's Office. 

See what others think. 

Half_way

Wasnt there an issue in the past with a body such as a university claiming "comercial sensitivity and then being told that they can not claim this get out ?