01/2018 to 12/2018 Time Line

From 2017

2018 – The ICO rejects the ‘commercial sensitivity’ exemption and directs HECL to provide AIW rate data – this supports the £23.71 / hour ‘defined cost’ – see 03/05/2018 below.


04/01/2018 – Sharon McCarthy @ HE states she is responsible for getting to the bottom of the allegations that have been raised.

Sharon makes accusation of sending ‘at least 30 to 50 emails a day’ (preposterous, denied and asked to evidence – has thus far failed to do so).  Mentions harassment.  The statement is false; such volume of emails has not been sent.


18/01/2018 – Sarah Green advises HECL should be getting the initial draft of KPMG’s report next week.


18/01/2018 – Peter Williams of Government Legal Department, acting for HECL

‘I am instructed that Sarah Green is satisfied that there is no substance to your complaint about Kier. Accordingly I am further instructed to press this claim, bringing proceedings if necessary.’

Sarah Green of HECL denies making the above statement.


12/02/2018 – Sarah Green states HECL had a draft audit report (KPMG) sent to their audit committee last Wednesday.  The committee had asked for further work to be undertake.

I was asked to give Sarah 3 weeks and was assured Mrs Green would come and see me if only to ‘buy me a cup of tea and a cake’.  We agreed I would diarise to 01/03/2018 to touch base by email about a meeting. I explained that I would be sending stuff on each file in the meantime to which Mrs Green replied ‘I know you’ve got to, and that’s fine’.


28/02/2018 – I spoke with Mrs Green and agreed to call late Friday.  I expressed concern for Mrs Green explaining part of the reason that I send so much is that I feared, in the background, there was a lot more going on than meets the eye; there is an awful lot of money involved.


02/03/2018 – Subject Access Request to Sharon McCarthy, Jim O’Sullivan and Colin Matthews.


08/03/2018 – we seek an update about the audit – email.  To date, no response.


22/03/2018 – Highways England threaten police action against the author – click here.


03/2018.  It appears Mrs Green is removed from the audit of KPMG and Tim Readon (General Counsel) has taken over.


04/2018 – We post information about systematic overcharging, misrepresentation about the charging process and that Appendix A is not being complied with – click here.


14/04/2018 – it appears the HE audit of Kier is a sham – click here.


03/05/2018 – HECL releases AIW rates – the response can be found here.By applying the information to claims, the calculation can be completed – click here

These figures are for ‘x’ (see 01/2017 above), specifically for AIW’s in Area 9.

  • Note: in 03/2016, more than  2years ago, HE’s General Counsel wrote that HE was charged £70.32 for an AIW.  This is untrue – more here

14/05/2018SAR made to KPMG.


24/05/2018 – FoIA Response – Rates are Commercially Sensitive – PIT upholding this undertaken by Patrick Carney.  See 21/11/2018 (below) – Patrick Carney states the rates are NOT commercially sensitive.


02/07/2018Kier plant rates to HE


23/07/2018 – TPCO disclosed: ASC DCP Analysis Begum Appeal (1).  This is the Third Party Claims Overhead percentage, the ‘uplift’ referred to in Appendix A to Annex 23, a figure of 25.29% in Area 9. The Decision notice can be read here.


28/08/2018.  Patrick Carney’s statement and analogy regarding DCP Rates can be read here. (registered users)


10/09/2018

FoIA to Highways England re ‘effort‘ of Tim and Nick to address rates as stated in 2016 and the Authority’s solicitor’s observations of Coles v Heatherton.


21/09/2018.  Jim O’Sullivan, CEO of Highways England writes:

I can tell you that the investigation into Area 9 Green Claims has concluded. Tim Reardon has written to Kier and other service providers operating under Asset Support Contracts reminding them of the need to charge the reasonable cost of repairing the damage to the road network, and making the point that costs which appear to be over-inflated, too remote from the damage or which duplicate other costs can expect to be struck out by a court.

The letter concluded:

The Court is the appropriate forum in which to challenge any costs you disagree with. I therefore see no grounds for taking your complaint further.

The full text can be found here – JOS letter to P Swift 210917

  • But has the investigation concluded? See 19/02/2019 below.

09/11/2018 – 2nd SAR of Highways England.  No information supplied … seemingly between 03/2018 and 11/2018, they hold no information!


21/11/2018 – Highways England’s witness Mr Patrick Carney, at a Tribunal, states DCP Rates are NOT commercially sensitive – for more click here.


28/11/2018 – Highways England confirms they DO receive information about sub-threshold (£10,000) claims by providing data they received about a specific claim – Highways England Response 766898 CMA ref.: U05B654


04/12/2018 – Judge finds that Highways England provided incorrect information, that requests have a serious purpose and their actions have caused approaches. Public Authority’s exemption of ‘vexatious’ which had been supported by the ICO, was dismissed, overruled –  for more click here.


to 2019