notomob.co.uk
Council Specific & Schunt Reports => Hackney => Topic started by: Boyo on 21 February, 2011, 05:26:47 PM
-
Out in Hackney today and came across two $camera vans.
1) Lawrence Buildings N16/Brooke Rd N16/Leswin Rd N16
Van parks in Lawrence Buildings with camera pointing southbound and films vehicles crossing Brooke Rd slightly left to enter Leswin Rd. As Brooke Rd is one way only (Westbound) the move across it to the left before immediately turning right into Leswin is illegal (It's virtually straight on but it's like a staggered crossroads) see "Hackney3" photo below
2) Boleyn Road N16 runs north/south parallel to, but west of, Kingsland High St N16 until the southern tip of Boleyn Rd (maybe 40 yrds) curves east to join the High St. Recently (within the last week according to a street cleaner I spoke to) this southern dog leg of Boleyn Rd into Kingsland High St has been made one way, west bound only, so you can no longer join the High St from Boleyn Rd. The curious thing here is that Boleyn Rd is the divider between Hackney and Islington, where the east side of the street is in Hackney and the west side is Islington. The van I saw today was parked in an Islington pay and display bay and was filming vehicles passing thro' the recently posted No Entry signs on the Hackney side. As I could discern no identifying markings on the van, I'm not sure for which borough it was enforcing! (see hackney1 photo)
-
One way to find out which council they are from:
Chuck a molotov cocktail underneath it and see which direction the occupants run. Vermin always flee to their nests!! :-ev-: :-ev-:
-
My Mrs has seen a Hackney van, she says it didn't have any of the red stripes on. So, there is either more that two for Hackney or the ones here are from somewhere else :idea:
-
Well I doubt they are Islington as we know what their cars look like so I think LBH. I will keep a look out too.
-
I saw one in mare st 0730 this morning driving towards the town hall from cambridge heath rd direction, didnt notice any red lines on it, will try to pay more attention next time.
I was born in Lawrence Buildings, happy days, there were no scamera's back then
-
I was born in Lawrence Buildings, happy days, there were no scamera's back then
I thought I saw a blue plaque up on one of the buildings there! :pmsl:
That $camera van was back at Boleyn Rd/Kingsland Road again this lunchtime (about 13.30) when I passed on the bus. >:( :bashy: :bashy:
Could someone with the suitable technical skills/privileges make Hackney into one of the child boards please?
-
@Boyo
You do the bus???? :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:
-
Sad but true BH, I quite like buses actually. :schucks: Must be old age - five years ago, I'd have got on the bike!
Heresy I know, but this morning I had to work in town and by the time I've got the bike uncovered, unlocked and I've waterproofed myself plus found a place to park and reverse the process at the other end, I opted for tube on way in and bus on way back. On the plus side this enabled me to have a "foot patrol" of west end honeypots on way home. Top deck is good platform for watching out for $cars too. :-ev-:
-
Hey, your chatting with the "King of the Oyster Card" mate. No worries either way, just keep em peeled!!!! :-ev-:
-
I think we should give you a custom title Boyo :D
-
Small world.
When Ealing palmed off their fleet of of these much detested vans, at least two of 'em were sold to Hackney.
Is it not illegal to be filming from vans that do not clearly display the warning signs?
-
Whilst out this AM, I came across the Hackney CCTV van as Boyo has already mentioned in Boleyn Road. This is a boundary Road and one half is Hackney, the other is Islington.
When I inspected the van, no Parking dispensation sign was displayed (But a Hackney permit was) and when I spoke to an Islington NSL CEO she said that both Councils have a an "Agreement" with one another re parking. W:T:F:
http://plixi.com/p/89691351 (http://http://plixi.com/p/89691351)
-
Nah they can't just agree to carve it up how they see fit. :bashy:
Otherwise WCC could have an agreement with say Enfield.
Its not allowed every ticket issued would be unenforceable.
-
Well this AM Islington sent me this. They are trying to tell me that under RTA (First mistake as it`s now TMA) , a Council CCTV van can park anywhere :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: Sadly Pat, these councils DO think that they can do whatever they want!!!!
Seems I will be having some fun with these 2 councils :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-:
You requested the following information:
"Please supply me with details of parking dispensation for Hackney Council
to park their CCTV vehicles within the Borough of Islington"
Please note that under the terms of the Road Traffic Act enforcement
vehicles may park in contravention in the course of performing enforcement
activities/duties regardless of the borough they are enforcing.
If you have a complaint about the handling of this information request,
please contact: Information Complaints, Corporate Resources, 60 Highbury
New Park, London, N5 2DJ. Email: [email address]
My reply..................................
"Dear Quinn, John,
Thank you for your reply. Kindly supply details of where in the
Road Traffic Act it states that "An enforcement
vehicles may park in contravention in the course of performing
enforcement
activities/duties regardless of the borough they are enforcing."
I await your reply with the details I have requested.
Yours sincerely,"
-
B*llocks is all I can say to that mate. W:T:F:
-
Pat, I agree. So next are my friends over the park in Hackney.........................................
"Dear Hackney Borough Council,
Please supply me with the following details
Please provide evidence of parking dispensation that allows you to
park a Hackney CCTV enforcement vehicle on the west side of Boleyn
Road. This is a boundary road and your CCTV vehicle regularly parks
within the jurisdiction of Islington Borough Council.
As this CCTV vehicle is located outside of the Borough`s
jurisdiction whilst filming at this location, under what
legislation does it operate under?
How long has CCTV vehicle enforcement taken place at this location?
How many PCNs have been issued at this location during this period?
Please provide the Traffic Management Order for this location.
Yours faithfully,"
Let`s see what they say :-ev-:
-
I await their reply with baited breath dr00L
-
Passed the Boleyn Rd/Kingsland Rd honeypot today and was surprised to see a white Mercedes Vito van (completely unmarked bar a $camera sticker on it's bonnet :bashy: ) in the usual Renault van scamming space. I managed to get some photos (see below) and to my double surprise discovered that it's tax disc was out of date! W:T:F: I had a lovely chat with a resident, who claims that the van's are regularly there, taking up valuable parking space -limited space for which you have to pay approx. £200 per year for a resident's permit to be in with a chance of parking there. Bearing in mind that this lady has to apply to Islington for her resident's permit, she's pretty aggrieved that Hackney are using the space to enforce revenue collection in Hackney. Add in to the mix, that she's disabled and lives with her elderly mother and the need to be able to park close to where she lives becomes even more pressing. Whilst chatting to her about this, an Islington NSL patrol pulled up and she informed them that the van was illegally parked and also had an expired tax disc. The two occupants of the Islington car said that they regularly used to give the van a ticket, but latterly they've been told not to as there's been some agreement between the councils obviously. W:T:F: . Hackney employ APCOA whilst Islington use NSL, so I can't imagine there'd be any love lost between them. Before the Islington car pulled up, the operator of the van appeared and wanted to know what I was doing. Bearing in mind that the only identifying mark that the van was displaying was an A4 sheet on the windscreen, I made my points to him. He at first told me to go on my way, aying haven't you anything better to do but then played the "my English is not very good" card and actually said "I've only been in the country a few months". Worryingly, when I pointed out to him that the tax disc had expired, he didn't seem to know what the tax disc was! Now, I don't know whether he was just playing dumb, but it does raise the question about who exactly Hackney are employing and of what standard is there training/selection criteria. I'd hazard a guess that this bloke was Eastern European (he had a very strong accent) but given what he told me, I genuinely wonder if his driving/training credentials are up to spec. Soon after he left and I was left chatting with the lady who struggles to find a space to park even tho she has an Islington permit. I promised her I'd send her my pictures too, as I think she wants to send a very strong worded letter to both councils. :-ev-:
-
Great work Boyo. :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
And it seems that another member of the public is finding her voice thanks to the No To Mob.
-
Its extremely well signed up in a non covert deterrent sort of way init?.............NOT! W:T:F:
-
I have sent in FOI`s to both LA`s and to date only Islington have replied with the normal blanket "Council vehicle Statutory powers" bullshit. I have YET AGAIN asked them to provide the TMO that allows ANOTHER Council to use this caveat in another Borough and as a football fan would chant "It`s all gone quiet over there!" I really don`t see how they can answer this one without admitting that they don`t have a TMO and there is no permission granted under the law.
I have asked Hackney the same and oddly they have yet to reply as they all scratch their heads at a member of the public having the cheek to question them :-ev-: Watch this space :-ev-:
-
Nice one BH and well done for putting in the FOIs/follow ups. I'm not holding my breath on Hackney either mate, (they seem to have an almost Wastemonster arrogance about them) but today I reported the van to the DVLA as untaxed (according to DVLA website the vehicle is still awaiting renewal!) and also sent this email to Hackney with some photos:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Yesterday May 4th, I came across, what I later discovered to be, a Hackney Mobile CCTV enforcement vehicle at the southern end of Boleyn Road N16. It was completely anonymous and unmarked bar a camera pictogram on the vehicle's bonnet. At first, I was curious to know for which borough it was enforcing as it was parked on the Islington side of the street. It was parked rather inconsiderately with the front overhang of the van overlapping into the adjacent disabled bay. On further closer inspection I noticed a piece of A4 paper blu-tacked to the windscreen which solely identified the vehicle as a Hackney one. Next to this paper was the expired Road Fund Licence disc. I enclose photographs below.
As a matter of urgency, I would like to know the following:
1) Is the vehicle road taxed or is it just failing to display a valid tax disc?
2) Under what dispensation can a Hackney enforcement vehicle operate whilst ostensibly operating in Islington? There were plenty of unoccupied spaces on the Hackney side of Boleyn Road.
3) What training do the drivers/operators of these vehicles receive? The operator I spoke to yesterday claimed that his English was "not very good" and he'd only "been in the country a few months". Does the operator hold a valid UK driving licence?
4) In what way does the vehicle adhere to the Secretary for State's guidelines (February 2008) that states that CCTV vehicles should be a visible deterrent? It's virtually unmarked and completely innocuous.
I hope you can agree with me that this really looks like "one rule for us and one rule for them" - something that surely Hackney Council will be keen to avoid. May I draw your attention to the following from page 24 of the below stated source:
“Adjudicators have noticed that in some of the correspondence the council has claimed that the TMA provides an exemption from parking restrictions for a CCTV vehicle. This is not the case - there are no provisions in the TMA or any of its regulations that create exemptions to parking restrictions in TROs for vehicles engaged in camera enforcement.”
Source: [url]http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/200910_Parking_Report_to_the_Joint_Committee.pdf[/url] ([url]http://http[/url]://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/200910_Parking_Report_to_the_Joint_Committee.pdf)
The fact that the vehicle should not be operating on the public highway without a valid tax disc only emphasises this "we can do what we like" premise and does nothing to allay the fears of tax paying residents that local authorities are putting profit before services. Indeed, the operator I spoke to yesterday seemed to be saying that he was allowed to park wherever, whenever he liked and I shouldn't really be bothered about such minor details as road tax - not that he knew what it was, I had to explain it to him.
I hope you will give this matter the urgent attention it deserves and respond to my concerns forthwith. I await your reply with interest.
Yours faithfully,
S. Brown
Let's see what happens. . .
-
Major respect Boyo, top top rib nudging. Lets hope now that the collective "borg" can nudge until those ribs bruise! :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
-
Nice job Boyo :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
It is the responsibility of the Driver to make sure his Vehicle is road worthy i.e. Tyres, Lights, etc. This also includes Tax, MOT, Insurance, ignorance is no excuse for any of the afore mentioned being incorrect.
You might want to point this out to the driver if you see him again and say as it has all ready been reported to him and the L.A. you are now going to report him immediately to the Police. See if that ruffles his feathers.
-
Nice one Boyo :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
-
Passed by Boleyn Rd again today and there seemed to be a Parking enforcers convention going on! W:T:F:
It must have been "shift change" as both Renault Hackney $camera vans were there swapping over. What I found most interesting tho, was that there was also a tow truck and "support" Transit Connect van from NSL's operated Islington Parking Services! (Hackney Parking Services are operated by APCOA). Needless to say, that after the automotive ballet of vans and trucks had taken place, both the Islington vehicles let the Hackney scamvan park illegally in an Islington space. I tried to get some photos on my phone which I've posted below.
Doesn't do much to dispel the myth of "one rule for them and one rule for us" really, does it?
And how lucrative a honeypot is this, if they actually take turns consecutively?
-
@Boyo
Seems we may have to turn the screw on this lot a bit tighter mate. All still very quiet from both Councils re FOI`s which as we all know from the past is the first sign of under arm damp patches in Town Halls :-ev-: Normally when they are confident in their answers they reply quickly but not this time eh? Time will tell :-ev-:I smell a story for the local rags very soon :-ev-:
-
Funny you should say that BH - :-ev-: I've been in contact with the Hackney Gazette and they are mulling things over at the mo. Hopefully they'll run something on it in the not too distant future, but can't say for sure.
Also, you're dead right about no answers being forthcoming - I've not received even an acknowledgement for my email yesterday - and I specifically asked for one. That's just poor customer service at best or bloody rude at worst. :bashy:
Definitely will be keeping the pressure on with this one :-ev-:
-
Feck me Boyo it looks like you have rounded them all up! are you part sheep dog? :rotfl:
Me thinks they are taking the piss and need some good old fashion $chunt attention. :idea:
-
@Pat
Agreed.Let`s wait for the replies (If they ever come) and we may have to "Assist" :-ev-:
-
Well, over a week now since my first email about the untaxed van and no response whatsoever from Hackney >:( so thought I'd send another nudge, this time to their complaints department, a copy of which is below:
Dear Sir/Madam,
It's now been over a week (May 4th) since I emailed the Council about my concerns over a mobile CCTV van not displaying a valid road fund licence disc (or was it not taxed?) and it's repeated parking in Islington bays whilst enforcing in Boleyn Road N16, despite the Hackney bays being free. I have sent emails to "[email:2t3rnwul]info@hackney.gov.uk[/email:2t3rnwul]" and also to "[email:2t3rnwul]cctv.leader@hackney.gov.uk[/email:2t3rnwul]" but have received nothing in reply. I do not know whether this is simply bad customer service or simply rude, however a simple acknowledgement that the complaint was being looked into would suffice. I attach the previous email and photographs for your perusal in case they have been "misplaced". I understand from your website that you endeavour to acknowledge complaints within three working days and answer them within fifteen days. I do hope this is the case and I await your full response to my questions with interest,
Yours faithfully,
Boyo
I think Hackney are definitely trying to give Wastemonster a run for their money in the "arrogance and ignorance" department. :bashy:
-
Yep still no reply from them either over here.....and Islington too W:T:F: W:T:F:
-
What winds me up is, why all this secrecy and stonewalling to keep things from the very folk they are meant to be serving?
Anybody would think that they had something to hide? :-X
I've got a few more "iron's in the fire" to try - re a resident who apparently has photos of the Hackney scam van parked in his dedicated Islington disabled bay - hopefully in tandem with the local rag, and I've not looked into the whole certification of equipment angle yet either (Any ideas from looking at the photos Nigel? ;) ) but I'm beginning to think a $chunt operation in Hackney is imminent. :-ev-:
-
Still no response to my FOI Request from Hackney either. I originally sent this to foi@hackney.gov.uk it was not returned so the email address exists.
When I enquired by telephone why they had not responded they replied that I had sent it to the wrong email address. I put it in again on the 5th of May and asked them to turn it round asap. They responded that they usually responded within the 20 days (working).
-
Nice article in this week's Hackney Gazette:
Sorry folks, I was hoping to have the articles available to click on, but in a moment of extreme clanger-ism seem to have uploaded them as pdfs. W:T:F: Not sure how I did that. I"ll try and reload it later! Sorry, I almost know what I'm doing. . . :schucks:
-
Good article mate. I think Emma B the reporter needs to ask both Councils why the are so reluctant to answer my FOIs then as their time expired today :-ev-:
-
Sent to both Council`s via FOI this PM
[font=Tahoma:5b1tnfva]
-
Nice one BH :aplude:
Well, I nearly fell over this morning when I opened my email as I finally got a reply from Hackney today - albeit just an acknowledgement. It was in response to an email (the 4th one I believe) I sent to [email:x8zlctmd]complaints@hackney.gov.uk[/email:x8zlctmd]. I'll post a copy of it below - I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read it. Interesting to note that the response comes from the "Business Analysis and Complaints" Department and the man who's been charged with the onerous task of answering my questions is "Head of Parking and Markets"! I don't know whether they mean "markets" as in barrow boys and stalls etc. or "markets" as in "place to exploit commerce and make money". Quite a useful coincidence that. Anyway, he 's been asked to "provide a full response by June 7th", so I'm not holding my breath. I will let you know what happens next. Here's this morning's missive:
[font=arial:x8zlctmd][/font:x8zlctmd]
[font=arial:x8zlctmd]LBH73950-11 - Your complaint[/font:x8zlctmd][/b]
[font=arial:x8zlctmd][/font:x8zlctmd]
[font=arial:x8zlctmd]Thank you for your complaint.[/font:x8zlctmd][font=arial:x8zlctmd]I am sorry that you are unhappy with the service you have received from Hackney Council.[/font:x8zlctmd]
[font=arial:x8zlctmd][/font:x8zlctmd]
[font=arial:x8zlctmd]I have forwarded your comments to Seamus Adams Head of Parking and Markets, who has been asked to provide you with a full response by[/font:x8zlctmd][font=arial:x8zlctmd]07 June 2011[/font:x8zlctmd][font=arial:x8zlctmd].[/font:x8zlctmd]
[font=arial:x8zlctmd][/font:x8zlctmd]
[font=arial:x8zlctmd]Yours sincerely[/font:x8zlctmd]
[font=arial:x8zlctmd][/font:x8zlctmd]
[font=times new roman:x8zlctmd]Abdul Basit[/font:x8zlctmd]
[font=arial:x8zlctmd]Business Analysis &[/font:x8zlctmd][font=arial:x8zlctmd]Complaints[/font:x8zlctmd]
[font=arial:x8zlctmd]Performance, Policy &[/font:x8zlctmd][font=arial:x8zlctmd]Delivery[/font:x8zlctmd]
[font=arial:x8zlctmd]London[/font:x8zlctmd][font=arial:x8zlctmd] Borough of Hackney[/font:x8zlctmd]
[font=arial:x8zlctmd][/font:x8zlctmd]
-
Well I don't want to burst you're balloon Boyo but Seamus Adams is an anagram of [/font:tozmk6no]
-
:pmsl: :pmsl: :aplude: :aplude: Nice one Pat that's brilliant but I've told you before about watching too much Countdown - no good can come of it.
However I think that's a pretty good maxim to use when dealing with any councils - "Assume as mad!" :rotfl: :pmsl:
-
No good can come of it! Are you mad Boyo....I mean what about....Carol Voderman [/b] dr00L
(http://http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/passtheremote/carol-vorderman.jpg)
I rest my case M,Laud. :-*
-
This one looks like it could run and run. Keep us updated Boyo, but for some reason I'm thinking a No To FlashMob might get their attention.
Bald Eagle is plotting... :-ev-:
-
Nice to see us exposing more dirt/truth, well done Boyo :aplude: :aplude:
-
Passed by Boleyn Rd today and, lo and behold, the scamvan was there but this time on the correct (Hackney) side of the road. Unfortunately, as you can see from the driver's point of view shot I took below, this makes the No Entry signs completely invisible to passing traffic until it's probably too late - in fact, it could probably cause an accident if you'd just noticed the signs and then braked heavily to avoid committing any offence. Hardly a safe junction methinks. :bashy:
Also, how high is that camera?! W:T:F: I think air traffic control should have to be informed before they deploy that puppy!
Interesting to note also, was that throughout this deployment the diesel racket of the van's engine was loudly shaking and rattling. It's bad enough when little iQ's leave their engines idling but this is an (at least) 2.0litre diesel motor that's constantly chugging away. Emissions anyone? :o I feel another FOI coming on.
There's something deeply unsatisfactory about the set up at this junction :bashy: .
I had a text from Emma B at the Hackney Gazette the other day and she made a very good point about the road markings on this junction (or lack/impropriety of them). For example, there are centre lines painted down the middle of the spur from Kingsland Rd, which would surely suggest that the road is two-way. ??? Also, there are no forward warning signs indicating that you can't turn into the road on the approach roads. Does anybody have any more input on the legality of this? I've tried to look at the Traffic Signs manual and will continue to do so, but any input will be greatly received, particularly as Emma wants to do a follow-up article in the Gazette asap.
One bit of good news today tho was, even tho we are not officially assisting at this junction, I had a driver ask me about the junction today as he was trying to get onto Kingsland Rd from Boleyn. So, in earshot of the scamvan, I was pleased to be able to put him in the right direction thus avoiding a nasty surprise in the post - he was very grateful! :aplude:
-
Nice :rotfl: :rotfl:
Odd how with all of our FOIs they decide to park there all of a sudden W:T:F: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:
I have asked Hackney for the TMO for this restriction but they are acting as dumb and dumber W:T:F: This said, if I have time in AM I will try to take some pictures of the spot as I think we maybe causing a stir now mate :-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-:
-
where is the driver Boyo? is he sat in the back of the van when enforcing. As this is an Offence to leave a vehicle running whilst not in the cab. Supposing it slipped into gear no one is in control of the vehicle!!!!! :idea:
-
Yes Pat they always sit in the back!
-
Hmm i see some filming taking place soon :-ev-:
-
One man CAN make a difference! Great work Boyo. Onwards and upwards mate. :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
Heigh ho, heigh ho, it's off to work we go... :rotfl:
-
This sounds to me like something the Police should be informed of when it happens.
-
Just sent another FOI off to "Whatdotheyknow.com".
I know that Hackney's Vito van wasn't displaying a valid tax disc (until at least 5th May) as I have picture evidence, so I thought I'd find out how many PCNs were issued during that 5 day spell. :-ev-: . Let's see how they long they delay on this one.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pcns_issued_for_passing_through (http://http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pcns_issued_for_passing_through)
@BH saw the reply to your FOI mate W:T:F: What planet are they on? They've just totally ignored your questions! Good for you for keeping at them. I intend to do the same - there's something not right here :bashy:
-
@Boyo
Their reply came into my Iphone whilst I was in Richmond yesterday PM but when I looked at it I thought my Iphone was not showing the full reply W:T:F: So when I got home I opened it up and low and behold as you saw, they have merely supplied the TMO and NOT answered the questions I put to them. This is clearly a delay tac tic for them to be able to say "Well we did answer within the 20 days" B/S and they probably hope the matter will go away...........LIKE FECK!!!!! :-ev-:
:-ev-: :-ev-: :-ev-: I aint going anywhere and I want answers :-ev-: >:D
-
So Islington seem to allow Hackney to park their CCTV van in their jurisdiction using the same excuse. In short, ANY LA CCTV car can NOW park in any borough it seems :rotfl: :rotfl:
Thank you for your Freedom of Information request, received on 13 May 2011.
You requested that we provide you copies of all minutes of meetings regarding the provision of parking dispensation for Hackney Council’s CCTV Enforcement vehicles to park within the borough of Islington. As well as all internal emails and external emails.
I can advise you that there have been no meetings or e-mail exchanges relating to the dispensation to park for LB Hackney CCTV vehicles. This would not be necessary as our Waiting and Loading 2004 order allows as follows;
An abstract from this order states:
"vehicles when used in the service of a local authority in pursuance of statutory powers or duties provided that in all the circumstances it is reasonably necessary in the exercise of such powers or the performance of such duties for the vehicle to wait in the place in which it is waiting"
Regards
Brad Pearton
Technical Officer
Parking & Business Service
Public Realm
Environment & Regeneration
T:07584370713
E: xxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Web: www.islington.gov.uk (http://http://www.islington.gov.uk)
Alternative Contact: John Quinn 07584370714
-
Have just sent an FOI asking a few questions about which days they work, who the contracted company is etc
Will you know how I get on.....
-
The response:
Dear Mr XXXXX,
Thank you for your email of 29^th August 2011 requesting information
about the CCTV enforcement vehicles.
Please accept the Council’s apology for the delay in providing a response.
Your request has been considered and the information requested is below:
How many CCTV enforcement Vehicles does Hackney employ the use of?
o 3 CCTV enforcement vehicles
Which days of the week are the vehicles used?
o Monday - Sunday
What is the address of the base from which the vehicles work from?
o 43 Andrews Road, London E8 4QL
Does HBC own the vehicles, or are they used on behalf of HBC by a private
company under a contract with HBC?
o Vehicles are owned by the council and it is operated by a private
company
If the vehicles are run by a private company on behalf of HBC via a
contract, please tell me the name of the private company, and please send
me a copy of the contract.
o Please see attached document, Parking Enforcement Contract
The Council has exempted information relating to pricing as these details
are considered to be exempt under Section 43(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act.
Section 43 (2) states that:
information is exempt if its disclosure would, or would be likely to,
prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public
authority holding it).
In this instance, a tender process for next years’ contract is currently
taking place. As this is ongoing process which is due to conclude in early
2012, it is felt that disclosing detailed financial information contained
within the current contract would be likely to prejudice the commercial
interests of the current contract holder, APCOA. Companies who submit
tenders for this service operate within a highly competitive environment.
It is therefore felt that the release of the detailed information
contained within this contract could be detrimental to the company
involved as there is a chance that the same financial models may be
submitted as part of the forth coming tender.
Upon review of the nature of the information requested and having
consulted the organisations concerned, the council contends that Section
43 of the Act is applicable.
The Council has conducted a public interest test and concluded that
disclosure of these items would not serve to benefit the public as a
whole.
The council has considered the arguments in favour of releasing this
information such as:
o The duty to promote transparency, accountability and public
participation in local government affairs and decision-making.
o The Council also recognises that disclosure of the council’s
contractual documentation could enhance the quality of decision-making
processes adopted by Hackney.
The Council has also considered the arguments against disclosing this
information such as:
o The age of the information requested.
o The likelihood and severity of any harm or prejudice that disclosure
could cause.
o The significance or sensitivity of the information.
The information that has been requested is current and the information
supplied by the company involved, such as proposed pricing indexes and
methodology, is commercially sensitive at this time. This is the case as
there is an ongoing tender process taking place. Therefore, the council is
of the opinion that disclosure is likely to have a detrimental impact upon
the company involved.
In this instance, the Council contends that the arguments in support of
the decision to withhold this information weigh in favour of the arguments
in favour of disclosure.
The signatures of parties who signed the contract is also exempt by virtue
of section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the purposes
of section 40(3) (i) which provides for the exemption of third party
personal information if it would contravene any of the eight Data
Protection Principles.
Section 40(2), of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, provides an
exemption from disclosure of an individual’s personal information, where
it would contravene any of the data protection principles. Under these
circumstances, our view is that disclosure of signatures, to a member of
the public otherwise than under the FOIA, would breach the first data
protection principle.
The first data protection principle states that personal data should be
processed lawfully and fairly.
Please note the information is still covered by copyright legislation.
You are not authorised to re-use this information for commercial or
research purposes as defined by the Re-Use of Public Sector Information
Regulations 2005. If you wish to re-use this information please contact
the Information Governance Team, 3rd Floor, Maurice Bishop House, Reading
Lane, London, E8 1HH
If you are dissatisfied with this response and wish to appeal, please
write to the Information Governance Team, Appeals, at the address above
and your complaint will be dealt with through our Internal Review
procedure.
If you are still not satisfied following the Internal Review, you have a
right to appeal to the Information Commissioner. He can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House - Water Lane –
Wilmslow - Cheshire - SK9 5AF
Telephone: 01625 545 700
[1]www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk
Yours sincerely,
Emmanuel Omololu
Parking & Markets/Street Trading Complaints Officer
Tel: 020 8356 8292 - Fax: 020 8356 6901
[2][email address]
Hackney Council may exercise its right to intercept any communication, the
only exception to this would be confidential survey data, with any
employee or agent of the Council using its telephony or data networks.
By using these networks you give your consent to Hackney Council
monitoring and recording your communication.
If you have received this e-mail in error please delete it immediately and
contact the sender.
For further information about Hackney Council policies please contact
Hackney Service Centre on: 020 8356 3000.
-
Kill Swith, have you another FOI in asking for the Honey Pots :-ev-:
Whats wrong with the contract then :bashy:
-
I just need to make the contract file smaller than 2.5mb in order to upload it
-
Here's the contract.
I had to split it into seperate files as it was too big to upload as a single file.