Sue McQuinn says….
I’ve finally received a response to my FOI request to see a copy of the ULHT/PE contract. The bad news is they’ve redacted the hell out of it – to the point of making it useless! I won’t bore you with the whole 87 pages. This is my response to the CEO & Chair:
Dear Mr Morgan & Ms Baylis,
Thank you for your response to my FOI request. The sections that have been redacted (particularly schedule 5) make what I’ve received little more than a generic set of terms and conditions that could apply to the supply of anything!
The ICO has previously rejected s43 as a reason for redacting parts of a contract. ParkingEye previously allowed their contract with South Tyneside NHSFT to be published following an FOI request 12/3/17. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/394697/response/975514/attach/4/03%20Parking%20Eye%20Tender%20Response%20Document%205.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
This would indicate that it is ULHT who are reticent, rather than ParkingEye.
One of the main reasons for my FOI request is to check that the contract doesn’t go against Government guidance on NHS patient, visitor & staff car parking principles particularly this point:
“Contracts should not be let out on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg ‘income from parking charge notices only.’”
Your offer to send a copy of the blank specification & tender response doc would serve little purpose – it’s what was agreed under contract with ParkingEye that’s important.
I do note that under Freedom of Information & Transparency 2.8.1 in the document you supplied, it would seem that the other information I’ve asked for from Mr Boocock, regarding PCNs issued, should be available.
I look forward to your early response.
PLEASE CONTACT ME IF YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES REGARDING ULHT CAR PARKS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO MY ATTENTION.