1st Floor
Darlington Magistrates Court
Parkgate
Darlington
DL1 1RU
T 01325 289350
E
www.gov.uk
Lewis
Our Ref: FOI/95003 /
26th January 2015
Dear Lewis,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) – Outcome of Internal Review
Thank you for your Internal Review request dated 11 December 2014 regarding a Freedom of Information request in which you asked for:
Can you please provide the number of civil cases through the small claims track initiated by Approved Operators of the British Parking Association members
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Approved-Operators
and initiated by Approved Operators of the Independent Parking Committee members
http://www.theipc.info/#!aos-members/cv75
Could you list this by each Operator whether or not it actually led to a hearing. Please don't only give figures for the ones that went to hearing.
In addition of the ones that went to hearing can you provide that number and tell me how many of these were default judgements where no defence was made.
Please provide information from the 01/11/2013 to 31/10/2014
The purpose of an Internal Review is to assess how your Freedom of Information request was handled in the first instance and to determine whether the original decision given to you was correct. This is an independent review: I was not involved in the original decision.
Firstly I would like to sincerely apologise for the delay in responding to you, due to the nature of your request, and negotiating with different areas of the business to ensure the data provided was accurate.
I have reassessed your case and after careful consideration I have concluded that the initial response that was sent to you non compliant with the requirements of the FOIA. An explanation of my decision follows. This is an independent review: I was not involved in the original decision.
Your original request was refused as the MoJ does not hold the information that you have requested. When assessing whether or not the information is held I have determined that the MoJ does hold the number of civil cases that were heard through the small claims track initiated by Approved Operators of the British Parking Association members and initiated by Approved Operators of the Independent Parking Committee members
Therefore, I believe the response you previously received was incorrect and I have overturned the original decision. Please accept my apologies, and please find enclosed the information that you requested in Annex A Tables 1 and 2. Your question went on to ask: "in addition to the ones that went to a hearing can you tell me how many of these were defaulted judgements where no defence was made".
I should explain that after a Claim has been issued a number of things might happen. For example, a default judgement could be made or an admission filed, amongst others. However, these would occur before the case was allocated to a Track e.g. Small Claims Track. Default judgements would not normally be recorded as occurring after allocation.
I have therefore prepared two tables in Annex A which I believe answers your questions.
Please note that if a request is made for information and the total figure amounts to five or fewer people, the MoJ must consider whether this could lead to the identification of individuals and considers the information in line with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
It is the general policy of the Ministry of Justice not to disclose to a third party, personal information about another person if releasing it would contravene any of the provisions in the DPA. This is because the MoJ has obligations under the DPA to protect this information. In this instance we believe that the release of this information would contravene the first data protection principle and therefore section 40 (2) is engaged. Section 40(2) of the FOIA states that personal data relating to third parties, (i.e. a party other than the person requesting the information), is exempt information if one of the conditions in Section 40(3) is satisfied. Please note that personal data is not only factual information about a living person such as someone’s name, address, DOB etc. It also includes information about a living person who could be identified from that data and I believe that applies in this instance because of the individual case information asked for within your question.
It is my view that disclosure of figures of five or fewer cases would breach one or more of the Data Protection Principles in the DPA. For example, disclosure would breach the fair processing principle, as it would be unfair on the person who the personal data relates to, and they have a reasonable expectation that the Department would hold that information in confidence.
The terms of this exemption in the Freedom of Information Act mean that we do not have to consider whether or not it would be in the public interest for you to have the information.
You can find out more about Section 40(2) by reading the extract from the Act and some guidance points we consider when applying the exemption, attached at the end of this letter.
You can also find more information by reading the full text of the Act (available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/40). The Data Protection Act can be found at the following link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents
You can also find more information by reading the full text of the Act (available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents)
However, I have decided to disclose the data where values are for more than five and identification of specific cases is not an issue; and have aggregated data counts where the claimants involved have been recorded as slight variations of a common name.
Please note that, at times, companies may use different names, or names may have spelling variations resulting in them not being identified in the data below. In regards to my comments above, "-" below denotes a small value of five or less.
You have the right to appeal our decision if you think it is incorrect. Details can be found in the ‘How to Appeal’ section attached at the end of this letter.
Disclosure Log
You can also view information that the Ministry of Justice has disclosed in response to previous Freedom of Information requests. Responses are anonymised and published on our on-line disclosure log which can be found on the MoJ website:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/information-access-rights/latest-disclosure-log
The published information is categorised by subject area and in alphabetical order.
Yours sincerely
Jason Greenwood
Delivery Manager
How to Appeal
Information Commissioner’s Office
If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Commissioner is an independent regulator who has the power to direct us to respond to your request differently, if he considers that we have handled it incorrectly.
You can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office at the following address:
Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Internet address: https://www.ico.org.uk/Global/contact_us
ANNEX A – Table 1
Claims issued in the 12 month period 1 October 2013 to 30 September 2014 and subsequently allocated to the Small Claims track. Data shown in the columns relates to the Claims issued in that period.CLAIMANT / Small Claims / To a Hearing / Judgment / Disposal other than Judgment or Settled / Withdrawn / Settled / Withdrawn before hearing day / Settled / Withdrawn on day - hearing commenced / Settled / Withdrawn on day – no hearing
CANTERBURY CHRIST CHURCH UNIVERSITY / - / - / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED / 122 / 117 / - / 21 / 47 / 0 / -
COMBINED PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD / 7 / 6 / - / 0 / - / 0 / 0
COMBINED PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD T/AS COMBINED PARKING SOLUTIONS. / 15 / 13 / - / - / 7 / 0 / 0
DEVERE PARKING SERVICES LTD / 33 / 31 / 6 / - / 14 / 0 / -
DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT LIMITED / 6 / 6 / - / - / - / 0 / 0
DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT LIMITED T/AS DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT / 28 / 26 / 6 / - / - / - / 0
EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD / 29 / 23 / 10 / - / 7 / 0 / 0
KBT CORNWALL LTD T/A ARMTRAC SECURITY SERVICES / - / - / - / - / 0 / - / 0
LCP PARKING SERVICES LTD T/AS LCP PARKING SERVICES / - / - / 0 / 0 / 0 / - / 0
LDK SECURITY GROUP / - / - / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
LONDON PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD / - / - / 0 / - / 0 / 0 / 0
NAPIER PARKING LIMITED / - / - / 0 / 0 / - / 0 / 0
OCTAVIAN CONTINENTAL LIMITED / - / - / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
PARKINGEYE LIMITED / 9 / 9 / - / - / - / 0 / 0
PARKSHIELD COLLECTION LTD / - / - / - / 0 / - / 0 / 0
PREMIER PARK LIMITED / 16 / 16 / - / - / - / 0 / 0
PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS LIMITED / - / - / - / - / 0 / 0 / 0
Q-PARK LIMITED / - / - / 0 / 0 / - / 0 / 0
SIP PARKING LIMITED / 32 / 31 / 13 / - / 11 / 0 / 0
SUSSEX SECURITY SOLUTIONS LTD T/AS PARKING ENFORCEMENT / - / - / - / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
UKCPS LTD / 126 / 119 / 23 / 8 / 65 / 0 / 0
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED / 18 / 16 / 8 / - / - / 0 / 0
VINCI PARK SERVICES UK LTD / - / - / 0 / 0 / - / 0 / 0
Notes
1. The above data is the most recent available. 2. Data are taken from a live case management system and can change over time. 3. Data are management information and are not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics. 4. The data provided has been extracted specifically to answer this question and has not been cross referenced with case files. 5. Companies which did not issue any claims in the period have been excluded from the table. 6. Claimant are entered free text onto the case management system and so are subject to variations in spelling and mis-spelling and so it is not possible to guarantee that all cases involving the companies listed have been included in the totals above. 7. Judgments are not all inclusive and courts can choose to record the information under a general form of order (as it presents them with scope to add any additional requirements to comply with for the order as opposed to just monetary awards/costs). We do not have any details of those available centrally. 8. Some claims issued may not yet have had a Hearing.
ANNEX A – Table 2
All claims issued between 1 October 2014 and 30 September 2014 and of those how many were dealt with as a Paper Based Judgement (PBJ) which will include default judgements against the Defendant (often where no defence was made) and judgements where an admission was filed. Data shown in the column PBJ relates to the Claims issued in that period.CLAIMANT / ISSUED / PBJ
APCOA PARKING UK LTD / - / 0
BUSINESS WATCH GUARDING LTD / 9 / -
CANTERBURY CHRIST CHURCH UNIVERSITY / 19 / 18
CAPITAL CARPARK CONTROL / 25 / 21
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED / 2,788 / 1,849
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED T/AS CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED / 10 / -
COMBINED PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD / 71 / 35
COMBINED PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD T/AS COMBINED PARKING SOLUTIONS. / 177 / 134
DEVERE PARKING SERVICES LTD / 245 / 158
DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT LIMITED / 53 / 35
DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT LIMITED T/AS DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT / 404 / 226
EURO PARKING COLLECTION PLC / 9 / -
EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD / 251 / 190
KBT CORNWALL LTD T/A ARMTRAC SECURITY SERVICES / 12 / -
LCP PARKING SERVICES LTD T/AS LCP PARKING SERVICES / - / 0
LDK SECURITY GROUP / 9 / -
LIBERTY PRINTERS (AR AND RF RE DDIN) LTD / - / -
LONDON PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD / 14 / 7
NAPIER PARKING LIMITED / - / -
OCTAVIAN CONTINENTAL LIMITED / - / 0
OCTAVIAN CONTINENTAL LTD / - / 0
PARKINGEYE LIMITED / 13 / 0
PARKSHIELD COLLECTION LTD / 23 / 14
PREMIER PARK LIMITED / 106 / 71
PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS LIMITED / 18 / 13
PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS LIMITED (COMPANY NUMBER 06659134) / - / -
PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS LIMITED CO NOP 06659134 / - / 0
PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS LIMITED) / - / -
Q-PARK LIMITED / 12 / 8
SALISBURY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST / - / -
SECURE CAR PARKS LTD / 28 / 20
SENATOR SECURITY SERVICES LTD / - / 0
SIP PARKING LIMITED / 308 / 176
SUSSEX SECURITY SOLUTIONS LTD T/AS PARKING ENFORCEMENT / 19 / 17
THE UNIVERSITY OF KENT / 10 / 7
THE UNIVERSITY OF KENT (REGISTERED CHARITY) / - / -
UKCPS LTD / 1,472 / 970
UKPS (NW) LIMITED / - / 0
UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD / - / -
UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE / - / -
UNIVERSITY OF KENT / 22 / 20
UNIVERSITY OF KENT AT CANTERBU RY / 8 / 8
UNIVERSITY OF KENT AT CANTERBURY / - / -
UNIVERSITY OF YORK / 12 / 11
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED / 43 / 15
VINCI PARK SERVICES UK LTD / - / 0
Notes
1. The above data is the most recent available. 2. Data are taken from a live case management system and can change over time. 3. Data are management information and are not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics. 4. The data provided has been extracted specifically to answer this question and has not been cross referenced with case files. 5. Companies which did not issue any claims in the period have been excluded from the table. 6. Claimant are entered freetext onto the case management system and so are subject to variations in spelling and mis-spelling and so it is not possible to guarantee that all cases involving the companies listed have been included in the totals above.