notomob.co.uk
Council Specific & Schunt Reports => Croydon => Topic started by: Bennage on 04 May, 2011, 02:32:32 PM
-
Check out what I sent (the same questions asked of Wandsworth) and the crap answers they provided.
Their numbers are also attached.
Enjoy!
[hr:1s2z5zcz][/hr:1s2z5zcz]
Dear Mr Bennage,
Request for Information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Ref - F/11/390
Thank you for your email which you sent on 28 March 2011 regarding CCTV
vehicles. We have now considered your request under the terms of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and I apologise for the delay in
responding to you.
You asked:
1. How many CCTV equipped vehicles (a.k.a. camera cars) do you have
operating on behalf of Croydon Borough Council and how long have
they been in operation?
One CCTV Smart car deployed September 2008
2. What is/are the vehicle(s) enforcing? (i.e. parking, moving
traffic violations)
The CCTV Smart enforces Parking and Moving contraventions.
3. Please provide the number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs)
issued from the date the car(s) were introduced, including money
gained from said PCNs and the offences relating to them.
Please see attached table showing number of PCNs issued since September
2008.
We do not hold information on revenue by camera/CCTV car. To answer your
specific questions it would be necessary to review all of the information
held. The Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit)
Regulations 2004 specifies an "appropriate limit" for the amount of time
the Council needs to spend undertaking that review. If the Council
estimates it will take more than that, then under s.12 of the FOIA, it is
not obliged to carry comply with that request. The appropriate limit
currently specified by the Regulations for local authorities is £450.
This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 2½ working
days in locating, retrieving and extracting the information from where it
is stored. We estimate that the cumulative time it would take officers to
carry out this undertaking would exceed the appropriate limit. Therefore,
we are unable to disclose the information you are seeking and will not be
processing this part of your request further.
4. Please provide the total amount of expenditure paid by Croydon
Borough Council to enable the operation of the car(s) on a monthly
basis.
On a monthly basis the vehicle does not cost us any additional expenditure
due to using existing control room staff which were in place before the
vehicle was deployed and the only cost to the council is Petrol, Road Fund
Licence and Insurance.
5. Please provide locations where the CCTV equipped vehicles
operate.
The CCTV vehicle can operate any where in the borough where traffic
violations are a problem.
If you are dissatisfied with the way the department has handled your
request under the Freedom of Information Act you may ask for an internal
review. Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within
40 working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request
received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Council.
You can do this by outlining the details of your complaint and either
e-mailing us at [1][Croydon Borough Council request email]
faxing us on 0208 760 5679
writing to FOI Complaints, London Borough of Croydon, Democratic and
Legal Services, Croydon, CR9 3JS
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely,
Tracey Patel
Communication & Quality Assurance Coordinator
Community Services Department
Parking Services
PO Box 1462
Croydon CR9 1WX
Tel - Tel: 020 8726 6000 (Ext. 60789)
Fax - 020 8667 1066
THINK Customer
-
And my reply:
[hr:22048nfj][/hr:22048nfj]
Dear Tracey,
I would appreciate it if you were to answer a few of these
questions a little further...
Q3.
Would you explain why you do not hold the requested information?
According to the table you attached, you have issued 9,423 PCNs
since Oct 08. If we take an average of £130 paid per PCN (the full
amount for most contraventions according to your website before the
increase due to missed payments), multiplied by the number of PCNs
you claim to have issued, the figure comes to £1,224,990. To claim
that you do not know the details relating to this figure is a very,
very serious issue which clearly needs addressing.
Remember that the Freedom of Information Act requires you to
confirm whether or not you actually have the information, unless
working that out alone costs more than £450. If you are telling me
that it will cost you more than £450 just to find out if Croydon
know how much they earn from PCNs, there is again something very
seriously wrong at Croydon Council and an investigation will be put
into action.
If however, you are ONLY claiming that it will cost too much to
discover the specific details under section 12 of the FOIA, then
please provide the following:
-How much the cost to provide this information will be.
-How this cost has been calculated.
-How it is justified compared with many other London Boroughs who
have managed to calculate and provide this information free of
charge.
For example, please see:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cc... (http://http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cctv_equipped_cars_use_and_figur_2)
Q4.
You have not answered my question at all here.
You state that there is no additional expenditure. Additional to
what? I would still like a figure to be provided. Again, this
question has been answered by other councils free of charge, so I
would appreciate a more valid response.
Q5.
I am aware that the vehicle CAN operate anywhere in the borough. I
would like to know the locations where it actually does operate.
I bring your attention to The Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2007, paragraph
2, part (d), which states:
"The device must include a recording system in which...where the
device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location
from which it is being operated."
With this in mind, I would imagine it's not too tricky to supply
the requested information.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Bennage
-
Go Bennage! GO!!! :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
-
Its lucky we have many big spoons to stir with and plenty of spades to dig with. :-ev-:
Not that we need to do the digging, we just hand out the spades and others dig for themselves :rotfl:
Nice one Mr Bennage :aplude:
-
Does anyone have a picture of a MEV in Croydon. If so please post it.
-
Just taken me 5mins to work this out, (blonde moment) but MEV=$car.
I would guess Nigel would be interested in a picture including the roof mounted camera.
Correct me if i'm wrong Nigel.
-
Just taken me 5mins to work this out, (blonde moment) but MEV=$car.
I would guess Nigel would be interested in a picture including the roof mounted camera.
Correct me if i'm wrong Nigel.
I guess its "moving enforcement vehicle" ? = MEV ?
-
Mobile enforcement vehicle perhaps?
-
Yes please a pic. of the camera.
-
Just taken me 5mins to work this out, (blonde moment) but MEV=$car.
I would guess Nigel would be interested in a picture including the roof mounted camera.
Correct me if i'm wrong Nigel.
I guess its "moving enforcement vehicle" ? = MEV ?
MEV = Mobile Enforcement Vehicle. A Pic. the camera would be appreciated.
-
well done Bennage, :aplude: :aplude:... copy and paste time :rotfl:
-
Thanky muchly chaps and chapettes.
I'll keep you apprised of the responses.
Methinks I might head to Croydon tomorrow to have a look at their car if I can find it.
-
Hi Guys and Gals :aplude:
Long time no see, as i live and work in Croydon, i come across the little ratty vehicle quite often , next time i do will snap it un iphone and get it to you :)
Regards Chas
-
Updates:
16 May 2011 Dear Tracey,
When I spoke to you on Monday, I was promised a reply by today if
not Friday. Monday has now essentially been and gone.
I'd appreciate an update.
Yours sincerely,
Bennage
[hr:2v7o3fli][/hr:2v7o3fli]
I then got an out of office auto-response saying she was away until Tuesday. The fun begins here...
[hr:2v7o3fli][/hr:2v7o3fli]
17 May 2011 Dear Mr Bennage,
I am writing in response to your follow up questions to your FOI request ref F/11/390.
You asked:
Q3. Would you explain why you do not hold the requested information?
According to the table you attached, you have issued 9,423 PCNs
since Oct 08. If we take an average of £130 paid per PCN (the full
amount for most contraventions according to your website before the
increase due to missed payments), multiplied by the number of PCNs
you claim to have issued, the figure comes to £1,224,990. To claim
that you do not know the details relating to this figure is a very,
very serious issue which clearly needs addressing.
Remember that the Freedom of Information Act requires you to
confirm whether or not you actually have the information, unless
working that out alone costs more than £450. If you are telling me
that it will cost you more than £450 just to find out if Croydon
know how much they earn from PCNs, there is again something very
seriously wrong at Croydon Council and an investigation will be put
into action.
If however, you are ONLY claiming that it will cost too much to
discover the specific details under section 12 of the FOIA, then
please provide the following:
-How much the cost to provide this information will be.
-How this cost has been calculated.
-How it is justified compared with many other London Boroughs who
have managed to calculate and provide this information free of
charge.
For example, please see:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cc... (http://http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cctv_equipped_cars_use_and_figur_2)
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, we are not required to record a breakdown of income by Smartcar, but what we are required to provide is a breakdown of moving, bus lane and parking contraventions (both financial and statistical). These are available in the published TMA accounts attached. The information previously provided comes from our internal monitoring working documents but these only provide management information on how many PCN's are issued and the patrolling areas of the Smartcar. Therefore we are unable to link these to specific PCN numbers as this is not recorded and so are unable to match this to income. Additionally the software we use does not identify if it is a Smartcar or any other PCN.
In terms of the figure that has been calculated above, it is not that straightforward to calculate income in the way mentioned above. Of the PCN's issued some will be cancelled due to representation submitted to the council, some will be paid at discount rates some at full rate and also some of the income will not be recovered at all which will obviously result in the average income per ticket issued being lower than the full rate.
Q4.You have not answered my question at all here.
You state that there is no additional expenditure. Additional to
what? I would still like a figure to be provided. Again, this
question has been answered by other councils free of charge, so I
would appreciate a more valid response.
The average monthly expenditure for the Smartcar is £217.65. This is for fuel, repairs and maintenance of the vehicle.
Q5.I am aware that the vehicle CAN operate anywhere in the borough. I
would like to know the locations where it actually does operate.
I bring your attention to The Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2007, paragraph
2, part (d), which states:
"The device must include a recording system in which...where the
device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location
from which it is being operated."
The CCTV vehicle operates in every street in the borough. There is no defined list as it can go to all streets in the borough. The Smartcar uses GPS positioning to record the exact location of the vehicle using OS longitude and latitude co-ordinates. The equipment used is an approved device and has been accredited under the TMA requirements.
I hope I have answered your questions fully.
Yours sincerely
Tracey Patel
Communication & Quality Assurance Coordinator
[hr:2v7o3fli][/hr:2v7o3fli]
A little while later, I sent this:
[hr:2v7o3fli][/hr:2v7o3fli]
24 May 2011 Dear Tracey,
No, you have still not answered my questions fully in any way.
You state that you have attached published accounts, but you did
not. Please resend with the mentioned attachment.
I am well aware that the amount paid for PCNs varies greatly but
was merely taking the 'middle ground' to try to calculate a figure
as you seem unable to provide one for me.
The sole purpose of your CCTV equipped car is to aim for 100%
compliance with no penalties issued. This is according to the
Traffic Management Act 2004 and The Secretary of State’s Statutory
Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions dated 28 February 2008.
This means that essentially, the entire purpose of the CCTV
equipped vehicle is safety.
Surely you should therefore be tracking the number of PCNs issued
at certain locations and for specific violations. If not, how are
you ever going to be able to tell which junctions need addressing?
If PCNs are being issued on a regular/over average basis, there is,
by definition, a safety problem at that location which must be
addressed by the council.
Can you please confirm if you really are unable gather any
information about specific junctions and the PCNs issued therein?
In Q.4, I asked "Please provide the total amount of expenditure
paid by Croydon
Borough Council to enable the operation of the car(s) on a monthly
basis."
Note the key word 'total' here. This includes staffing costs. I'm
not sure how else I can make this any clearer.
Does the car really operate in EVERY single street in the borough?
That is a really very large task and seems rather pointless as
there are many, many streets where CCTV enforcement is entirely
unnecessary and would be a waste of tax payers money.
Let's start with an easy one to answer:
Please list the 10 highest ticketed locations.
Yours sincerely,
Bennage
[hr:2v7o3fli][/hr:2v7o3fli]
More time went by, so I sent this:
[hr:2v7o3fli][/hr:2v7o3fli]
31 May 2011 Dear Tracey,
Another week has gone by and you have not even been courteous
enough to acknowledge my e-mail.
When can I expect a reply of any sort?
Yours sincerely,
Bennage
[hr:2v7o3fli][/hr:2v7o3fli]
Then, interesting/infuriatingly, I got this back:
[hr:2v7o3fli][/hr:2v7o3fli]
2 June 2011 Hello Mr Bennage
Your email dated 24 May 2011 asking for further information was forwarded to our FOI team and logged as a new FOI request therefore we have 20 working days to respond to your request.
I apologise if you were not sent an acknowledgement.
Regards
Tracey Patel
Communication & Quality Assurance Coordinator
[hr:2v7o3fli][/hr:2v7o3fli]
So I send this back:
[hr:2v7o3fli][/hr:2v7o3fli]
2 June 2011 Dear Tracey,
I can only assume you are treating the last point in my last e-mail
as a new question.
It is not a new question and therefore cannot be given a new 20 day
time frame.
Having still not received an answer to question no. 5, I made
things a little easier for you by narrowing the scope of the
question to only 10 locations.
This question, along with questions 3 and 4 remain unanswered.
I'd appreciate a response to this e-mail without further prompting.
Yours sincerely,
Bennage
-
...Also, aloha Chas! :)
-
"The Smartcar uses GPS positioning to record the exact location of the vehicle using OS longitude and latitude co-ordinates."
I think that Tracey will find that there is no such thing as Ordinance Survey longitude and latitude co-ordinates. At least these co-ordinates are not used by any MEV that I have previously seen. Ask her to clarify this answer. Ask her exactly what format the embedded locations on the DVD photographs are given in.
-
Go Bennage! GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
-
An update for you all:
6 June 2011
Hello Mr Bennage
We have logged this request as a FOI request as you have asked a new question, 10 highest ticketed locations for the Smart car.
Your other points will also be answered.
The date we have to respond by is 23 June 2011.
Regards
Tracey Patel
-
23 June 2011 @ 17:55 - note that they really do leave it to the last possible minute
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Dear[/font:2kzpgowr][font=arial:2kzpgowr]Mr Bennage[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Freedom of Information Request[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]I write f[/font:2kzpgowr][font=arial:2kzpgowr]urther to your email of 24 May 2011, in which you have requested, amongst other things, information about CCTV vehicles. Your request has been considered under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. For ease of reference I will address each aspect of your request in turn.[/font:2kzpgowr]
“[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Surely you should therefore be tracking the number of PCNs issued at certain locations and for specific violations. If not, how are you ever going to be able to tell which junctions need addressing? If PCNs are being issued on a regular/over average basis, there is, by definition, a safety problem at that location which must be addressed by the council.[/font:2kzpgowr]
“[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Can you please confirm if you really are unable gather any information about specific junctions and the PCNs issued therein?”[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]As advised previously, under the Traffic Management Act (TMA) 2004, the council is not required to record a breakdown of income by Smartcar. However, the council is required to provide a breakdown of moving, bus lane and parking contraventions (both financial and statistical). These are available in the published TMA accounts (copies of the 2008-09 and 2009-10 are enclosed with this response). The information previously disclosed comes from the council’s internal monitoring working documents but these only provide management information on how many Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) are issued and the patrolling areas of the Smartcar. Therefore we are unable to link these to specific PCN numbers as this is not recorded and so are unable to match this to income. Additionally the software we use does not identify if it is a Smartcar or any other PCN.[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]In terms of the figure that has been calculated above, it is not straightforward to calculate income in the way mentioned above. Of the PCN’s issued, some will be cancelled due to representation submitted to the council, some will be paid at discount rates some at full rate and also some of the income will not be recovered at all which will obviously result in the average income per ticket issued being lower than the full rate.[/font:2kzpgowr]
“[font=arial:2kzpgowr]In Q.4, I asked "Please provide the total amount of expenditure paid by Croydon Borough Council to enable the operation of the car(s) on a monthly basis.” Note the key word 'total' here. This includes staffing costs. I'm not sure how else I can make this any clearer.”[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]As advised previously, the average monthly expenditure for the Smartcar is £217.65. This is for fuel, repairs and maintenance of the vehicle.[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]The council does not employ specific staff to operate the Smartcar. The staff used are our existing CCTV enforcement staff and therefore the council does not incur additional staffing costs.[/font:2kzpgowr]
“[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Does the car really operate in EVERY single street in the borough. That is a really very large task and seems rather pointless as there are many, many streets where CCTV enforcement is entirely unnecessary and would be a waste of tax payers money.[/font:2kzpgowr]
“[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Let's start with an easy one to answer: Please list the 10 highest ticketed locations.”[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]I can confirm that the Smartcar operates in every street. The ten highest ticketed locations for the Smartcar are as follows:[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Brighton Road[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Dunheved Road South[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Beulah Road Thornton Heath[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Lower Addiscombe Rd[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Addington Rd, South Croydon[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Northwood Road, Thornton Heath[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Upper Beulah Hill[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Buckingham Ave[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Kensington Ave[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Whitehorse Lane[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]I attach the published accounts that I did not send with my previous response in error.[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]If you are dissatisfied with the way the council has handled your request under the Freedom of Information Act you may ask for an internal review. This should be submitted to us within 40 working days of this response. You can do this by outlining the details of your complaint[/font:2kzpgowr][font=arial:2kzpgowr]by:[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Email: [/font:2kzpgowr][font=arial:2kzpgowr][email:2kzpgowr]xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx[/email:2kzpgowr][/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Fax:[/font:2kzpgowr][font=arial:2kzpgowr] 020 8633 9522[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Writing:[/font:2kzpgowr][font=arial:2kzpgowr] Complaint Resolution Team[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]London Borough of Croydon[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Taberner House[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Park Lane[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Croydon, CR9 3JS[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Any requests received after the 40 working day time limit will be considered only at the discretion of the council.[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Information Commissioner’s Office[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Wycliffe House[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Water Lane[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Wilmslow[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Cheshire SK9 5AF[/font:2kzpgowr][font=arial:2kzpgowr]Yours sincerely[/font:2kzpgowr]
[font=arial:2kzpgowr]Darren Shuster[/font:2kzpgowr][font=arial:2kzpgowr]Senior Complaints Resolution Officer (Statutory)[/font:2kzpgowr]
[/i]
-
My reply:
28 June 2011 Dear Darren & Tracey,
I would like to formally request an internal review.
The replies you have provided have once again been completely
unsatisfactory.
The original answer you gave to question 3 was that it would cost
more than £450 to provide the information. When challenged on this,
you changed your reason for not providing the information to it
simply not being available at all due to your lack of appropriate
software, yet it was suggested in your first reply that the
information was available, but at a cost.
Which is correct?
Question 4 STILL has not been answered.
You have not provided the staffing costs that I have repeatedly
asked you for. I really do not know how I could possibly make it
any clearer for you.
Question 5 has not been answered satisfactorily. You stated:
"The Smartcar uses GPS positioning to record the exact location of
the vehicle using OS longitude and latitude co-ordinates."
As far as I know, there is no such thing as OS longitude and
latitude co-ordinates. Ordinance Survey maps use grid references.
This just seems like something you made up. I'd like proof of your
claim that every image recording also includes it's location
recorded with it.
THIS IS NOT A NEW REQUEST AND MUST NOT BE TREATED AS SUCH.
The fact that you decided to add an additional 20 days onto the
original questions is unacceptable and I would like to know why
this happened.
Please be aware that I am also raising a complaint with the ICO.
BCC'd to press contact list.
Yours sincerely,
Bennage
-
Very well done Bennage.
Croydon Council are obviously not fit to be conducting any type of DPE. They keep no records of where contraventions occur. This means that they are simply touring around harvesting without any attempt at gaining any compliance or monitoring it.
If they monitor every street in the Borough they must be visiting streets where there are no restrictions - why?
-
Is it just me or have they contradicted themselves?
"....the software we use does not identify if it is a Smartcar or any other PCN"
then
"the ten highest ticketed locations for the smartcar....."
If they can't identify by what means the PCN was issued, how can they then give the top ten smartcar locations?
-
@ DD, a very interesting point, well spotted
-
I agree with Nigel's point as well, if you are visiting every street in the borough this seems to be a a huge waste of fuel time and wages for nothing. Seems to me most of these answer have been dreamed up in the canteen over a coffee by some idiots who think they are being clever.
-
To be honest, I think it simply means that there are no streets that are restricted from operation
-
"To be honest" Now that's a phrase you don't often hear when talking about the Local Authority KS. :rotfl:
-
Just my honest opinion, I would never suggest that a local authority would be honest :rotfl:
-
4 July 2011
Dear Darren & Tracey,
Would you please do me the courtesy of acknowledging my last
e-mail?
Once again, it has been nearly a week since it was sent and I have
heard nothing. Considering the fact that there are seemingly now
two different people working on this case, it seems strange that
neither of them are able to send a reply.
Yours sincerely,
Bennage
-
5 July 2011
Dear Mr. Bennage,
I write regarding your request for an internal review of the FOI request
reference CRTF2011-115. I apologise for the delay in acknowledging receipt
of your request.
I will be conducting the internal review and will endeavour to provide a
response within the statutory timescales; however, if there is any reason
to extend the time for the review I will let you know.
Having read through your request for a review and the history of the
request on "What do they Know", can I just confirm in respect of Question
3:
"Please provide the number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued from
the date the car(s) were introduced, including money gained from said PCNs
and the offences relating to them."
That you wish the Council to confirm whether or not it holds the requested
information; and if the Council does hold this information, whether or not
the Council believes that Section 12 of FoIA applies and is so how
appropriate limit has been arrived at and the costs calculated?
In the meantime I will contact the relevant officers in Community Services
Department (Parking Services) regarding the issues you have raised in
respect of this question and questions 4 and 5.
Yours sincerely,
Howard Passman
Information Management Manager
Democratic & Legal Services Division
-
6 July 2011
Dear Howard,
The answers that I've been given so far have contradicted
themselves, so I recommend you reconsider how you ask that
question, if at all.
On 17th May, 2011, Tracey included this in her response:
"...the software we use does not identify if it is a Smartcar or
any other PCN."
Then, 23rd June 2011:
"The ten highest ticketed locations for the Smartcar are as
follows:...."
However, if you wish to keep that question, yes - I still want that
along with all the others answered.
Questions 3, 4 and 5 also still remain unanswered.
Yours sincerely,
Bennage
-
Well done Bennage,, keep at em :aplude: