FOI Request - Review of 101003598706 Road Bonds
Request 101003631261
Review of 101003598706 Road Bonds
I am not happy with the response in relation to parts 6a) and 7 of my request and would like a review.
I should state at the outset, I am happy to receive the total number of the bonds and securities it has received (or has been lodged with the authority), in each of the last 10 years, and the total value of that security or bond and the total length of road that security or bond is to cover, if this can be provided. Likewise for 7 I am happy to receive the total number of the bonds called up and the total value of these bonds called up. This may help you protect against commercial sensitivities.
If these totals cannot be provided, I contend that the exemption has been applied incorrectly.
No attempt has been made to demonstrate whose commercial interests are likely to be prejudiced, as well as the particular nature of those interests, nor has there been any consideration of the public interest test in withholding the information.
Regardless, there is no attempt to demonstrate if disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially the commercial interests of any person. As the bond or surety must be lodged before the developer gets consent, the cost of the road and calculation of security is known in its maximum at the point it is lodged. On the basis it is calculated and lodged, harm to any legitimate economic interest is not likely. It is already quantified at the point of calculation and being lodged. Therefore, there is no genuine link between disclosure and the harm – as the calculation and lodging have taken place to produce a record, the harm is remote or hypothetical.
As is also required is for the council to demonstrate the Substantial harm release would cause. If the RCC process has worked as it should the part of the development process these bonds will be lodged, and consent given and works will proceed. That includes the competitive process and calculation based on the framework. Time will have passed and the council will be calling up bonds if the roads have not been delivered to the planned acceptable standard. The effect of the passage of time must also be considered when assessing whether disclosure of information would, or would be likely to, cause substantial prejudice.
Information about a tendering process may well cause harm to the commercial interests of those submitting tenders during or immediately following the process, but as time passes the likelihood of this harm will diminish as prices, service delivery methods and market conditions change. Given this is historical and not live information I am asking for, and the bond has secured the contract, the regulation does not apply. As was clear in my response, I am looking for the information spanning the past 10 years.
The information should be released as the exemption has been incorrectly applied.
As indicated above, I am happy to receive totals for each point (number, value, lengths; number called up, value of the bonds called up), if that is altogether easier to provide.
Response 25-09-2024
Following your request for a review (our ref: 101003631261) of your Freedom of Information (FOI) Request – Road Bonds 101003598706, a review meeting was held on 17th September 2024. In attendance were the Information Governance Manager and Data Protection Officer, Senior Engineer Transportation, and, Information Co-ordinator; and in consultation with the relevant Solicitor following the review meeting.
Your FOI Request from 3rd of July 2024 was discussed, and we reviewed our response of 25th July 2024.
Our initial response to your request was discussed. It was agreed that, whilst we cited exemption 33(1)(b), we did not set out whose commercial interests are likely to be prejudiced, or the particular nature of those interests. We also did not provide an explanation of our consideration of the public interest test. We apologise for these omissions.
The public interest test was discussed, and it was agreed that the public interest is better served by not publishing the individual bonds and securities, as this could indeed prejudice the commercial interests of the contractors, which in turn could impact costs for the Council and the public purse.
With regard to Question 6(a), since you have clarified in your review request that you would be satisfied with receiving the total number of the bonds and securities the Council has received as well as the total number and value of the bonds called up, the department has supplied the following information:
6a) Lodged Bonds
2013 £545,000.00 – 8no
2014 £4,333,200.00 – 28no
2015 £341,500.00 – 4no
2016 £1,980,000.00 - 27no
2017 £1,944,977.34 – 13no
2018 £964,000.00 – 8no
2019 £2,551,303.69 – 13no
2020 £2,952,000.00 – 10no
2021 £3,824,440.00 – 13no
2022 £3,167,499.00 – 3no
2023 £2,273,557.00 – 4no
The length of road the bond is held over is not recorded. As such, this information falls under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 - Information not held.
7. Called in Bonds
2019 £187,120
We hope you will find this additional information useful.