|
From: Hillingdon-Watch [mailto:petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk]
Sent: 12 September 2008 14:47
To: FOI-Enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Complaint Against London Borough Of Hillingdon - My Ref 6
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
On10th June I e-mailed LBH asking, inter alia, for information about the Borough’s Green Spaces Maintenance Contracts including how many such contracts there were. I also asked for advice and suggestions before formally requesting information on the Contracts.
I received no response and so on 26th June e-mailed LBH asking for copies of all of the Green Spaces Maintenance Contacts currently in force and the associated frequency timetables.
This was acknowledged by LBH FOI Team on 30th June.
On 28th July the FOI team responded saying that my request was rejected on cost grounds.
I was not satisfied with this response and on 30th July e-mailed the Deputy Borough Solicitor under the final stage of LBH’s FOI Complaints procedure, a copy of which is attached.
On 6th August I asked him to acknowledge my e-mail. This e-mail was copied to the Borough Solicitor. An acknowledgement was received the same day.
Not having heard anything further I e-mailed him again on 28th August, again with a copy to the Borough Solicitor, asking when I could expect a response.
I have not heard anything back (12th September).
My Complaint To The ICO
1. The response to my request of 26th June for information (copies of contracts) took over the 20 statutory working days.
2. In its response LBH did not say whether or not the information requested (contracts) was held. To fulfil their obligations I would have expected them to have said what contacts they held giving, say, the name of the contractor and the area covered. 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. All they had to do was to locate and retrieve the information was to take the contracts from their place of storage and place them somewhere for copying, the latter at my expense.
4. In their response of 28th July LBH said “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”.
Section 16 (1) of the FOIA 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 understand that subsequent decisions by the Information Tribunal make it clear that it is not sufficient for public body to discharge its obligations under 16(1) when it has turned an application down on cost grounds to suggest the applicant refines his or her application. Instead they should be pro-active in this regard.
LBH’s response of 28th July was therefore in breach of Section 16(1) of the FOIA. This breach is particularly reprehensible in view of the fact that at the outset (e-mail of 10th June) I had asked for guidance that would have helped me to define my request in more cost effective manner.
Copies of all relevant communications are reproduced below.
I would appreciate it if you could copy me in on any communications sent to or received from 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
www.hillingdon-watch.org.uk
20 Kingsend, Ruislip, HA4 7DA
01895 625770
---------------------------------------------------
Correspondence
From: Hillingdon-Watch [mailto:petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk]
Sent: 10 June 2008 08:00
To: Stuart Hunt (LBH Countryside Conservation Manager)
Cc: John Randall (MP Uxbridge); John McDonnell (MP Hayes& Harlington); Nick Hurd (MP For Ruilsip Northwood)
Subject: LBH Green Spaces Mainteance Contracts
Stuart
I plan to publish on my web site details of all of the contacts presently in force in the Borough.
This will enable residents, friends groups, Cllrs and MPs etc to see what level of maintenance is specified and hopefully provide you with helpful feedback.
This is a daunting task and before formally requesting the information I would welcome your advice and suggestions.
How many contracts are there?
Are they identical?
Presumably each has its own schedule of areas covered and work frequency timetables.
I assume that the body of the contracts and schedules are stored held as MS Word documents. Is that the case?
How large are the files?
I am sorry to generate more work – but it is all in a good cause.
Peter Silverman
www.hillingdon-watch.org.uk
20 Kingsend, Ruislip, HA4 7DA
01895 625770
--------------------------
From: Hillingdon-Watch [mailto:petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk]
Sent: 26 June 2008 11:16
To: Stuart Hunt (LBH Countryside Conservation Manager)
Cc: Nick Hurd (MP For Ruilsip Northwood); John McDonnell (MP Hayes& Harlington); John Randall (MP Uxbridge); Sandra Jenkins (LBH Cabinet Member Environment)); Richard Ingle (LBH Freedom Of Information Officer)
Subject: LBH Green Spaces Mainteance Contracts (FOI request for documents)
Stuart,
I am disappointed that I have not heard back from you following my e-mail of 10th June. However lets press on.
Could you please provide me with copies of all of the green spaces maintenance contracts currently in force in the Borough.
Hopefully, many if not all are identical in which case I would only need one copy.
I would also like copies of the schedules of relevant parks etc covered under each contract and the frequency timetables.
I assume these items have been created as MS Word / Excel documents or similar.
Could you please let me have everything electronically where possible. I appreciate that the signature pages will need to be photocopies.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Peter Silverman
www.hillingdon-watch.org.uk
20 Kingsend, Ruislip, HA4 7DA
01895 625770
---------------------------------------------
From: foi [mailto:foi@Hillingdon.Gov.UK]
Sent: 30 June 2008 15:24
To: petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk
Subject: Fwd: LBH Green Spaces Mainteance Contracts (FOI request for documents
Ref: FOI/880
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 26 June 2008.
Your request has been allocated the Reference FOI/880. 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 24 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.
Yours sincerely,
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: 28 July 2008 17:24
To: Hillingdon-Watch
Subject: Re: LBH Green Spaces Maintenance Contracts (FOI request for documents)
Ref: FOI/880
Dear Mr Silverman
I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information Request dated 26th June 2008.
As I understand it you were requesting:
"copies of all of the green spaces maintenance contracts currently in force in the Borough.
I would also like copies of the schedules of relevant parks etc covered under each contract and the frequency timetables.
I assume these items have been created as MS Word / Excel documents or similar.
Could you please let me have everything electronically where possible.
I appreciate that the signature pages will need to be photocopies."
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 and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) 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)
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this e-mail?
--------
From: Peter Silverman [mailto:p@petersilverman.com]
Sent: 30 July 2008 12:34
To: Mario Leo (Deputy Borough Solicitor)
Subject: FOI Request - HW Ref 6 - LBH Ref FOI/880
Mr Leo,
Please refer to the attached e-mails:
My e-mail to the Council of 10/06/08 "LBH Green Spaces Maintenance Contracts"
My e-mail to the Council of 26/06/08 "LBH Green Spaces Maintenance Contracts (FOI Request For Documents) The Council's FOI Team's e-mail to me of 28/07/09 "Re: LBH Green Spaces Maintenance Contracts (FOI request for documents"
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 as follows:
----
Part 1. The Council did not respond to my request within the statutory 20 working days.
Part 2. The request has been refused on the grounds that "it has been estimated that the cost of locating and retrieving the information exceeds the 'appropriate limit' i.e. £400. This is patently absurd. We are talking about current contracts and their associated schedules. There should be no need to search through different sources to collation information. The costs involved should therefore be trivial. Could you please provide me with a copy of the cost calculations used to determine that the cost was over the appropriate limit.
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?
This breach is particularly concerning since I had initially asked for guidance as to how I could structure my request (my e-mail of 10/06/08)
Could you please now fulfil your obligations under Section 16(1)of the FOIA.
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
20 Kingsend, Ruislip, HA4 7DA, UK
01895 625770
--------
From: Hillingdon-Watch [mailto:petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk]
Sent: 06 August 2008 11:46
To: Mario Leo (Deputy Borough Solicitor)
Cc: Raj Alagh (Borough Solicitor - LB Hillingdon)
Subject: FOI Request - HW Ref 6 - LBH Ref FOI/880
Mr Leo, Could you please acknowledge receipt of my e-mail of 30th July as requested.
Peter Silverman
www.hillingdon-watch.org.uk
20 Kingsend, Ruislip, HA4 7DA
01895 625770
--------
From: Mario Leo [mailto:MLeo@Hillingdon.Gov.UK]
Sent: 06 August 2008 14:39
To: Hillingdon-Watch
Cc: Raj Alagh
Subject: Re: FOI Request - HW Ref 6 - LBH Ref FOI/880
Dear Mr Silverman
May I firstly apologise for not having acknowledged your e-mail. Regrettably this was due to pressure of work.
Having considered the contents of your e-mail I am happy to treat this as a stage 3 complaint.
I am at the present time seeking information in order to enable me to respond to your complaint.
Mario Leo
Deputy Borough Solicitor
Legal Services
L B of Hillingdon
Civic Centre 3E.04
Tel: 01895 277465
Fax: 01895 250784
email. mleo@hillingdon.gov.uk
---------
From: Hillingdon-Watch [mailto:petersilverman@hillingdon-watch.org.uk]
Sent: 28 August 2008 17:39
To: Mario Leo (Deputy Borough Solicitor)
Cc: Raj Alagh (Borough Solicitor - LB Hillingdon)
Subject: FOI Request - HW Ref 6 - LBH Ref FOI/880
Mr Leo,
Thank you for acknowledging that this complaint can be treated under stage 3 of the Council's FOI Complaints Procedure.
This requires you to complete an independent review and respond within 15 working days.
However 20 working days have now elapsed.
Could you please let me know when I can expect a response from you.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Peter Silverman
www.hillingdon-watch.org.uk
20 Kingsend, Ruislip, HA4 7DA
01895 625770
------
From: Peter Silverman [mailto:p@petersilverman.com]
Sent: 15 September 2008 16:51
To: FOI-Enquiries@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Addendum - Complaint Against London Borough Of Hillingdon My Ref 6
Please treat this as an addendum to my e-mail of 12/09/08
I wish to add the following extra point under “My Complaint to the ICO”
5. While LBH acknowledged my complaint (30th July) under the final (stage 3) of their FOIA Complaints Procedure of on 6th August I have still not heard anything further from them (15th September). The procedures stipulates that the final stage will be dealt with within 15 working days.
Please note that the e-mails progressing this lack of response were copied to Mr Raj Alagh, the Borough Solicitor. It would in my view be unacceptable for the non response to be excused by the absence for whatever reason of Mr Leo.
Peter Silverman
20 Kingsend, Ruislip, HA4 7DA, UK
01895 625770
Subsequent e-mails
|
|
