|
Ref 5. Northwood Cemetery Inspection Reports and correspondence
Complaint To Information Commissioner 5
back
From: Peter Silverman [mailto:p@petersilverman.com]
Sent: 11 September 2008 14:50
To: 'FOI-Enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: Complaint Against London Borough of Hillingdon - My Ref 5
Who am I complaining about
London Borough Of Hillingdon (LBH)
Contact:
Mr R Ingles Freedom of Information Officer
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge
UB8 1UW
ringle@hillingdon.gov.uk
01895 55(6923)
Background
On 10th June 2008 I e-mailed LBH asking for copies documents relating to the management of grounds maintenance work at Northwood Cemetery. My request was acknowledged on 19th June. On 23rd July I received a response rejecting my request on cost grounds. I was not satisfied with this response and on 29th July I e-mailed Mario Leo, the Deputy Borough Solicitor, with a complaint under the final stage of the LBH FOI Complaints Procedure (a copy is attached). Having received no response I e-mailed him on 6h August. This e-mail was copied to the Borough Solicitor, Raj Alagh. Still having received no response I e-mailed them both again on 28th August. No response has been received to date. I am therefore submitting this complaint to the ICO. Copies of all relevant correspondence are reproduced at the bottom of this e-mail.
My Complaint To The ICO
1.The response to my request for information took over the 20 statutory working days
2.In its response LBH did not say clearly whether or not each of the various items requested were held. This was in breach of its duty to confirm or deny.
3.Their claim that the cost of locating and retrieving the information would exceed £450 is untenable. At £25/hr this is equivalent to 18 man hours. My request was for copies of existing documents. I was not asking for any data to be extracted and collated. In Feb 2008 I had requested similar information but covering a longer period, 10 months as opposed to 4 months. My request was complied with and I was sent 41 sheets of A4. No reference was made to cost. Please refer to Part 2 of my e-mail of 29th July. I asked for an explanation and a copy of their cost calculations but have received neither (e-mail of 29th July).
4.The Council is in breach of Section 16 (1) of the FOIA - duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance. Please refer to Part 3 of my e-mail of 29th July.
I would appreciate it if you could copy me in on any communications with LBH as you investigate this complaint. I prefer electronic copies and that communications dealing with this complaint are by e-mail.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Peter Silverman
20 Kingsend
Ruilsip
Middlesex
HA4 7DA
01895 625770
petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copies Of Correspondence
From: Hillingdon-Watch [mailto:petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk]
Sent: 10 June 2008 07:36
To: Paul Naylor (LBH Green Spaces)
Cc: Stuart Hunt (LBH Countryside Conservation Manager); Richard Ingle (LBH Freedom Of Information Officer)
Subject: FOI Act Request For Documents - GM/ Ruilsip Northwood- Enterprise Contract
Mr Naylor,
Could you please let me have copies please of:
1. Site Inspection Records for Northwood Cemetery from Feb 2008 – present
2. Contract Review Meeting minutes from Feb 2008 to present.
3. Any new documents/ records that cover the same ground as 1 and 2
4. Any correspondence between the Council and Enterprise plc since 1st Feb 2008 (but not limited to the above contract)
I appreciate that 1 will have to be in photocopied form as it the ticks and comments are hand written.
However I request that the other items are supplied as electronic copies. I assume that they have been created as Word documents and will not have been deleted.
Thanks for your continued help.
Peter Silverman
www.hillingdon-watch.org.uk
20 Kingsend, Ruislip, HA4 7DA
01895 625770
---------
From: foi [mailto:foi@Hillingdon.Gov.UK]
Sent: 19 June 2008 16:34
To: petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk
Subject: Re: FOI Act Request For Documents - GM/ Ruilsip Northwood- Enterprise Contract
Dear Mr Silverman
I am writing in response to your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 received by us on the 10 June 2008.
Your request has been allocated the Reference FOI/870. Please quote this reference in any correspondence regarding this request.
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we have 20 working days to respond to your request. Therefore the deadline for our response is 8th July 2008.
If we require further information from you in order to assist us in responding to your request, or if we require a fee to be paid before we can respond, we will contact you promptly.
Freedom of Information Team
Legal Services (3E 04)
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge
UB8 1UW
01895 55(6923)
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this e-mail?
-------
From: foi [mailto:foi@Hillingdon.Gov.UK]
Sent: 23 July 2008 14:36
To: petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk
Subject: FOI Act Request For Documents - GM/ Ruilsip Northwood- Enterprise Contract
Ref: FOI/870
Dear Mr Silverman
I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information Request. As I understand it you are seeking to know:
1. Site Inspection Records for Northwood Cemetery from Feb 2008 - present 2. Contract Review Meeting minutes from Feb 2008 to present.
3. Any new documents/ records that cover the same ground as 1 and 2 4. Any correspondence between the Council and Enterprise plc since 1st Feb
2008 (but not limited to the above contract)
In this instance we will not be complying with your request because it has been estimated that the cost of locating and retrieving the information exceeds the 'appropriate limit' as laid down in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004.
The appropriate limit is set at 450 and includes the cost of officer time charged at 25 per hour.
Under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act we are not obliged to comply with your request and we will not be processing your request further.
You may wish to refine and resubmit your request to bring it under the 'appropriate limit'. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any assistance with this.
If you wish to appeal against this decision, you should follow the guidance laid down in our FOI complaints procedure that you will find attached.
Freedom of Information Team
Legal Services (3E 04)
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge
UB8 1UW
01895 55(6923)
-----
From: Hillingdon-Watch [mailto:petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk]
Sent: 29 July 2008 15:28
To: Mario Leo (Deputy Borough Solicitor)
Subject: FOI Request - HW Ref 8 - LBH Ref FOI/870
Mr Leo,
Please find below my e-mail of 10/06/08 and the LBH's FOI Team's reply of 23/07/08.
I wish to make a complaint under the Council's FOI Complaints Procedure.
However can we first clarify the procedure. The officer to whom I made the request did not respond to me and we have had no informal contact. Instead the reply was received from the FOI Team. I assume the team includes the Council's Freedom Of Information Officer. It would seem appropriate therefore that we should proceed directly to step 3 of the procedure i.e. "Write directly to the Deputy Borough Solicitor". Can you please confirm that you are happy to proceed on this basis and to treat this e-mail as initiating this step?
My complaint to you is in 3 Parts as follows:
Part 1. The Council did not respond to my request within the statutory 20 working days. It took 31 days.
Part 2. I requested more or less the same information on 1st Feb.
In February I asked for:
1. A copy of any correspondence (e-mails, letters etc) between the Council and Enterprise which makes reference to the grounds maintenance work carried out by Enterprise at Northwood Cemetery (not burials) from April 2007. Where contact has been verbal, please let me have copies of any notes, meeting minutes etc recording what was said.
2. Copies of any inspection reports made by the Council checking the condition of the cemetery and / or the performance of Enterprise against contract since April 2007. If these are voluminous please let me have just the last 6 A4 sheets.
In June I asked for:
1. Site Inspection Records for Northwood Cemetery from Feb 2008 - present
2. Contract Review Meeting minutes from Feb 2008 to present.
3. Any new documents/ records that cover the same ground as 1 and 2
4. Any correspondence between the Council and Enterprise plc since 1st Feb
2008 (but not limited to the above contract)
The Feb request which covered a 10 month period was complied with and I was sent 41 sheets of A4. No reference was made to cost. However the June request which covered only a 4 month period has been rejected on cost grounds. This needs to be explained.
Part 3. The Council is in breach of Section 16 (1) of the FOIA. This states “It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it. Section 16(2) further states that “any public authority which, in relation to the provision of advice or assistance in any case, conforms with the code of practice under section 45 is to be taken to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in relation to that case”.
This code under S 14 says “ Where an authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information because, under section 12(1) and regulations made under section 12, the cost of complying would exceed the "appropriate limit" (i.e. cost threshold) the authority should consider providing an indication of what, if any, information could be provided within the cost ceiling. The authority should also consider advising the applicant that by reforming or re-focussing their request, information may be able to be supplied for a lower, or no, fee”.
I have not been given any advice as to what could be provided within the cost ceiling or how I could re-focused my request. Was any consideration given to this?
Could you please provide me with a copy of the cost calculations used to determine that the cost was over the appropriate limit.
Could you please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail.
Please quote my reference in any future correspondence on this complaint.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Peter Silverman
www.hillingdon-watch.org.uk
20 Kingsend, Ruislip, HA4 7DA
01895 625770
-----
From: Hillingdon-Watch [mailto:petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk]
Sent: 29 July 2008 15:35
To: Mario Leo (Deputy Borough Solicitor)
Subject: FW: FOI Request - HW Ref 5 NOT 8 - LBH Ref FOI/870
Correction- My Reference is “5” not “8” - apologies
Peter Silverman
www.hillingdon-watch.org.uk
20 Kingsend, Ruislip, HA4 7DA
01895 625770
------
From: Hillingdon-Watch [mailto:petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk]
Sent: 06 August 2008 11:56
To: Mario Leo (Deputy Borough Solicitor)
Cc: Raj Alagh (Borough Solicitor - LB Hillingdon)
Subject: FOI Request - HW Ref 5 - LBH Ref FOI/870
Mr Leo,
Could you please acknowledge receipt of my e-mail of 29th July reproduced below.
Peter Silverman
www.hillingdon-watch.org.uk
20 Kingsend, Ruislip, HA4 7DA
01895 625770
--------
From: Hillingdon-Watch [mailto:petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk]
Sent: 28 August 2008 16:55
To: Mario Leo (Deputy Borough Solicitor)
Cc: Raj Alagh (Borough Solicitor - LB Hillingdon)
Subject: FOI Request - HW Ref 5 - LBH Ref FOI/870
Mr Leo,
I have still not received a response, or an acknowledgment, to my e-mail of 29th July which was a stage 3 complaint under the Council’s FOI Complaints Procedure.
Under the procedure a response should have been made within 15 working days.
20 days have now elapsed.
Could you please let me know when I can expect your response.
Peter Silverman
www.hillingdon-watch.org.uk
20 Kingsend, Ruislip, HA4 7DA
01895 625770
--------
|
