False Information Supplied to Highways England?

12/2018 Are Kier Highways submitting false information to Highways England on each sub-threshold claim?  And if so … are Highways England aware of this?


U05B457: The Area 9 contract states on each sub-£10k claim Kier are to submit to HE:

  1. the amount claimed from third parties,
  2. a calculation of Defined Cost and resulting Third Party Claims Overhead,
  3. the amount recovered,
  4. an explanation of any differences between any of these amounts, and
  5. explanation of why any loss greater than Defined Cost has been claimed.

The above appears to enable Highways England to ensure Appendix A to Annex 23 is complied with.  This Appendix ‘sets out the principles to be followed when calculating the
maximum amount to be claimed for damage to Crown Property when the Provider (contractor) is pursuing a claim against any third party to recover the costs involved in the name of the Employer’ (highways England). It is the section that should provide protection to Third Parties by setting out an equation for reaching the MAXIMUM they are to be charged:

Defined Costs (£) + Third Party Claims overhead (%) = no more than (£)

In 2015 & 2016 HE staff were telling us they received no sub-£10k data.

In response to an FoIA request,  they have supplied in respect of a claim:

  1. Defined cost (£4,369.62)
  2. TPC Overhead (£1150)*
  3. Total (£5,474.70)
  4. Amount invoiced (£5,474.70)
  5. Amount recovered (£4,454.79)
  6. Comment

*In accordance with a 2018 FoIA response, the TPCO (above) calculates to 25.29% in Area 9.

But as Kier do NOT use ‘defined costs’ when invoicing Third Parties, how can they report correctly, accurately to Highways England, from where has the ‘defined cost’ of £4,369.62 arisen? It is not within the attendance, admin’ & repair costs submitted to the Third Party by use of the Cost Breakdown Document (CBD) – see below. These costs were presented without the Defined Cost & TPC Overhead detailed, as:

permanent repair £3,945.57
Initial Incident £809.91
Planning Repair £719.22
total £5,474.70

Same total (£5,474.70) just a different way of arriving at the figure and presenting it. But the following should be noted with regard to this matter and all other sub-threshold claims:

  1. Defined Costs are NOT being used.  The total of £4,369.62 does not appear below and how this has been arrived at, what rates have been used, is not explained. It appears Kier Highways:
    1. bill a Third Party using their own set of (secret) figures
    2. tell HE they are using the Defined Costs / TPCO process
    3. undertake a calculation and present the total billed (not using defined costs) as 74.71 % (defined costs) and 25.29% (TPCO).
  2. Planning has been charged to the TP at £719.22.  If Appendix A to Annex 23 were complied with, planning would NOT feature. ‘Planning repair of damage’ is item ‘d’ of Appendix A; it is addressed within the uplift percentage, the TPCO.
  3. Given we have presented similar evidence to Highways England, how could HE not know the process was not being followed?
  4. Kier have stated that the admin’ costs are ‘averaged’.  Aside of admin’ being catered for within the TPCO:
    1. the charge for the Claims Manager below appears at 1/2 hour incident identification’ and 1/2 hour for ‘pricing’.  A Judge has pointed out to Kier / Highways England in early 2017 that in order for 1 hour to be appropriate the Manager would need to do nothing else and spend 1.4 hours of every hour on claims!
    2. Kier state admin’ charges are averaged on every claim across the whole network.  Really; then why are they not averaged to Highways England and why, on some of the claims we see over £10k, is the DCP Manager not involved at all?

I do not suggest the below is the best example because the claim was litigated i.e. there would be additional costs.  However, reviewing the pre-litigation data, the information initially presented to an insurer, it is apparent the process (Appendix A) is not being complied with and it appears there is:

  • exaggeration – of costs
  • fraud – associated with multipliers

PRE-REPAIR COSTS – CBD



REPAIR COSTS – CBD



FULL FoIA REQUEST


25/10/2018

FOIAdvice@highwaysengland.co.uk

Dear Sirs

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

On 20/11/2016, a collision occurred in Area 9, the following references are available:

HE IRF completed (number illegible – possibly 7630?)
Incident Log 1626
HETO epaulette ****
IRF incident time 03:33 hrs, attendance 03:48 hrs

Kier advise occurred at about 09:00 hrs
M42 S/B 61/2
Kier ref GC27509
Incident 25595
Damage to beams
Attended by AIW’s **** **** & **** ****

Repair 20/11/2016 involved:
LX64OVG barrier truck
YB65XJN IPV

Repair 20/11/2016 involved:
LX64OVG barrier truck
WP14XJE TM truck

The repair cost was NOT sought from Highways England, this is a sub-threshold claim.

I ask to be provided all information held by Highways England about the incident. In particular I am seeking the information provided as routine, electronically.

The request will also include the report compiled in accordance with the Conditions of Contract, Clause 43 (ASC for Area 9) which states:

The Provider keeps detailed records relating to the Area Network, the Traffic Technology Systems (Midlands) and the Services (including performance levels in the Area Network and the Traffic Technology Systems (Midlands), the Defined Cost of Providing the Services and records relating to Subcontractors) in the format and containing the details and for the period specified in the Service Information. The Provider makes the records available to the Employer and his representatives (including the Service Manager) on request.

The report received is as required by Annex 19:

Third Party Claims handled by the Provider Service Information Chapter 1.9 & Annex 23 Report detailing, for each claim:

• the amount claimed from third parties,
• a calculation of Defined Cost and resulting Third Party Claims Overhead,
• the amount recovered,
• an explanation of any differences between any of these amounts, and
• explanation of why any loss greater than Defined Cost has been claimed.

Yours faithfully

Philip Swift


22/11/2018 from OD MIDLANDS HLC <ODMIDLANDSHLC@highwaysengland.co.uk>
Subject: Highways England Ref 766898

Thank you for your request for information which we received on 25 October 2018.

We are unable to provide you with our response to your request at this time. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may cause you.

We will continue to look into your request and will endeavour to provide you with a response by 28 November.

Kind regards

Hollie Wandby, Customer Correspondence Executive
High Level Correspondence Team – Operations Midlands
Highways England | The Cube | 199 Wharfside Street | Birmingham | B1 1RN
Tel: 0300 123 5000
Web: www.highwaysengland.co.uk


28/11/2018

Please see below the information requested as detailed in Annex 19 of the CoC
relating to this claim.


The above can be compared with the claim:

  • There was no breakdown of ‘defined cost’ and TPCO to insurers
  • £5,474.70 was the sum demanded
  • this sum is NOT the total of defined costs + TPCO
  • proceedings were threatened by Corclaim (who act for Kier Highways  and Highways England)
  • the claim was presnted as £5,474.70 + £455 (Court fee) + £100 solicitor’s costs (£6,029.70).
  • the insurer paid £5,870.91 to Corclaim (a.k.a. Shakespeare Martineau solicitors)

From: Philip Swift
Sent: 29 November 2018 11:00
To: OD MIDLANDS HLC
Subject: RE: Highways England Response Ref 766898
Dear Miss Wandby,
Thank you for the information. Could you please clarify the response by providing the following:
1. On what date did you receive the information
2. What further breakdown / information do you receive; date, reference, etc
3. Are you provided a breakdown of the ‘DEFINED COSTS’, a make-up of the total
4. What is your reference for the incident / claim
5. On the date of the loss, 20/11/2016, what is the DEFINED COST of an AIW*
6. Please confirm the defined cost of an item is the same to Highways England and a Third Party
7. What reconciliation, checking and auditing of the figure occurs?
It may assist to be aware that information was released 05/2018 in respect of defined costs however, the data is for 2014 to 2016 and concludes 11/04/2016, the defined cost being £23.71 / hour.
Yours sincerely,
P. Swift


07/01/2019  Our Ref: FOI 767 723

We have now completed our search for this information and I can confirm that we hold some of it.
1. On what date did you receive the information
The information was requested following receipt of your request and received on 23 November 2018

2. What further breakdown / information do you receive; date, reference, etc Highways England has no further information, all the information received was provided in our original response.

3. Are you provided a breakdown of the ‘DEFINED COSTS’, a make-up of the total
No, as stated above all the information received was provided in our original response.

4. What is your reference for the incident / claim
We do not have a reference for this incident/claim.

5. On the date of the loss, 20/11/2016, what is the DEFINED COST of an AIW*
We do not hold this information. The Defined Cost for an AIW will be calculated on a case by case basis in accordance with the contractual definition.
The definition can be found in the Area 9 Asset Support Contract, in T&C’s
(Area 9 ASC Conditions of Contract Rev 5.doc), section 11 Identified and defined terms, sub section 31. A copy of the Area 9 Asset Support Contract is available here
https://data.gov.uk/data/contracts-finder-archive/contract/1238249/

6. Please confirm the defined cost of an item is the same to Highways England and a Third Party
The Defined Cost is a defined term in the contract. We confirm that the definition is applied to Highways England and third parties in the same way in accordance with the contract.

7. What reconciliation, checking and auditing of the figure occurs?
Highways England does not verify individual below threshold claims.


08/01/2019  FOI 767 723

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your email, the response of 07/01/2019.  I believe there has been a misunderstanding about the information I am seeking and am hopeful the following will explain this.  I am appreciative of your willingness to clarify.

Q1. On what date did you receive the information 

A: The information was requested following receipt of your request and received on 23 November 2018

Query / clarification:

I understand you are sent the information by way of an Annex 19 report i.e. it is not necessary for you to have sought the information from Kier Highways, rather there is a contractual obligation to send this to you i.e. it was (or should have been) in your possession when I made the request.

More about Annex 19 can be found here:

http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/3597-2/

http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/sub-threshold-information/

  1. Is my understanding (above) correct?
  2. From whom did you request and receive the information following receipt of my request which you received on 23 November 2018 i.e. was this a request of Kier Highways, an internal (Highways England) request or other?

You will appreciate, from my understanding, it does not appear it would be necessary for you to seek information from Kier Highways as it appears this would already have been provided.

Q3.  Are you provided a breakdown of the ‘DEFINED COSTS’, a make-up of the

total

A: No, as stated above all the information received was provided in our original

response.

  1. Are you able to request and be provided this?

I understand, the information being collected on your behalf, seeking the data from the contractor is possible.

Q5. On the date of the loss, 20/11/2016, what is the DEFINED COST of an AIW* 

A; We do not hold this information.  The Defined Cost for an AIW will be calculated on a case by case basis in accordance with the contractual definition.  The definition can be found in the Area 9 Asset Support Contract, in T&C’s (Area 9 ASC Conditions of Contract Rev 5.doc), section 11 Identified and defined terms, sub section 31. A copy of the Area 9 Asset Support Contract is available here https://data.gov.uk/data/contractsfinderarchive/contract/1238249/

Query / clarification:

I am asking for the ‘£’ charge to you for an AIW, the defined cost of the AIW, as at the date of loss, 20/11/2016.  Your answer is not understood.  In 2018, Highways England released rates for AIW’s in Area 9 which can be found here: http://www.englandhighways.co.uk/aiw-rates-2014-to-2016/.  The information relates to the period 14/07/2014 to 11/04/2016.  It does not extend to the date of the loss about which I am enquiring, 20/11/2016.

Highways England hold and disclosed the information relating to 11/04/2016.

  1. Please explain Why Highways England do not hold the rate for 20/11/2016 or confirm this is held

I trust this clarifies my request which is for the monetary value of an AIW at the date, as opposed to the definition of a ‘defined cost’.

  1. Please supply the cost to Highways England, the defined cost and DCP Rate (if different – though I understand the terms are synonymous) for an AIW as at 20/11/2016. I assume it will be at or about £23.71[1]

Q6. Please confirm the defined cost of an item is the same to Highways England and a Third Party 

A: The Defined Cost is a defined term in the contract.  We confirm that the definition is applied to Highways England and third parties in the same way in accordance with the contract.

Query / clarification:

I have noted ‘defined cost’ in the contract.  I am not seeking comment with regard to the definition of ‘defined cost’ but your response suggests that the term is used identically to Highways England and Third Parties i.e. over and below threshold (£10,000) in Area 9.

  1. What I am seeking is confirmation or correction the monetary value, the ‘£’ of a ‘defined cost’, is the same to Highways England and Third Parties i.e. over and below threshold (£10,000) in Area 9.

Whilst not wishing to appear pedantic, but seeking to ensure there is no confusion:

  1. Are you saying that, if on a specific date, the defined cost of an AIW to Highways England is £23.71 / hour, on the same date, the cost of an AIW to a Third Party is identical i.e. £23.71 / hour and in turn:
  2. That the difference in the charge for an AIW to Highways England as opposed to a Third Party is the uplift[2] which
    1. To Highways England is understood to have been 7.4% or 6.38% and
    2. To a Third Party is 25.29% (23/07/2018 FoIA disclosure) and therefore:
  3. The cost of an AIW to HE is ‘defined cost’ + fee (7.4%)
  4. The cost of an AIW to a TP is ‘defined cost’[3] + TPCO (25.29%) i.e. the figures are as follows:
HE HE TP
Defined Cost £23.71 £23.71 £23.71
fee 6.38% 7.40% 25.29% TPCO
uplift £1.51 £1.75 £6.00
total £25.22 £25.46 £29.71

Yours Faithfully

[1] early 2016 rate (FoIA disclosure) and by reference to HE112/009/SG830 AIW rate 12/2016 @ £23.71 & £22.63.  My ref: W11D370.

[2] as described by Highways England’s witness to a Court in 2017 – transcript supplied to Highways England.

[3] defined cost in ‘e’ and ‘f’ being identical


08/03/2019 Your Ref: FOI 768 326  INTERNAL REVIEW REQUEST

I am seeking

1. the information you receive routinely
2. The rates you are charged for above threshold DCP works, the schedule of rates used for above and below works.

I asked on what date you received the information. Your response is not accepted in light of the evidence. Your witness has informed a Court that the information is provided monthly. Your witness has made a statement:

In terms of the operatives’ time sheets every month every person completes such time sheets which we have to then send to Highways England

And when asked before a Judge:

Q. How often do they complete these time sheets?

Replied:

A. They have to do them. Some, well, it depends on the person. Some of them do it every day. They have to do them at a minimum of every week, so we have to submit them to our client every month.

I am seeking all information that has been provided in respect of this specific matter. To date I have but a brief overview, not the detail that the contractor (according to the above statement) sends, the Annex 5 codes. A Court was informed:

this annex 5 breakdown and there’s thousands of codes that people have to do and submit a timesheet against that goes to our client every month that they sign off.

When undertaking the Review, please explain the contradiction and provide a copy of Annex 19 from the contract in support of the statement made. I also expect to be provided the information your received, routinely in accordance with the contract, from your contractor.

I am advised that the ‘base rate’ costs (a.k.a. DCP Rates, Defined Costs, Nominal Rates, Notional Rates) to HE and a TP are the same, that the difference to the parties is the uplift.

The ‘base rate’ charge to HE and TP’s in NOT the same. I am being misled.

The charge for some aspects, is clearly by reference to a schedule as the contractor does NOT change on a case by case basis but are consistent in their pricing as rates are calculated by use of averaging. Your witness has made a Statement of Truth:

22. By way of further explanation if that is required, although it is largely contained in the insurer’s guide document, the costs under “planning” are put together as result Of averages across the previous 12 month period..

I ask that the review consider how this applies to charging on a case by case basis, without a pricing schedule

It is stated that:

the Defined Cost for an AIW will be calculated on a case by case basis in accordance with the contractual definition, there is no schedule including rates.

This is believed to be false. It is understood costs are necessarily compiled on a case by case basis. However, that this is undertaken by reference to an agreed schedule of rates OVER threshold and should occur UNDER threshold. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of the evidence and commons sense:

a) It contradicts the consistent costs we have seen throughout periods on above and below threshold claims. For example, for over a year the cost of an AIW to a TP in Area 9 was £73.05 where as to HE it was £23.71

b) Is undermined HE’s General Counsel stating, in late 2015, HE were charged £70.32 (the Area 3 rate charged to TP’s for many months)

c) The lack of a schedule would mean that any claim received by HE could not be reconciled pre-payment against an agreed price list to ensure the figures presented were correct.

d) Would call into question, with regard to 170+ requests and reviews between 2013 & 2018, HE ‘s response that requests for the rates were:

a. Commercially sensitive:
i. What public interest test could be undertaken of non-existent material?
ii. To what was the contractor objecting unless a schedule exists
b. Vexatious; who is the vexatious party, the one seeking information that seemingly does not exist or HE for failing to advise any requestor in a 5 year period, in connection with over 170 items of correspondence, that said rates are not held because they do not exist

e) What are HE seeking to withhold when presenting arguments to the ICO? Currently, a request for rates deemed ‘vexatious’ by HE has seen no mention that said schedule is mythical, that the entire request is pointless because, no matter what the outcome, the schedule does not exist, rather:

a. HE defended their ‘vexatious’ exemption with the ICO and received support
b. The matter was appealed and HE engaged Government Legal Department
c. The request was presented to a Tribunal who found the request was NOT vexatious
d. HE sought to challenge this and engaged a Barrister
e. The Tribunal denied the appeal

f) Time and time again, Green Claims staff have withheld the pricing schedule claiming it is ‘commercially sensitive’

g) Costs are agreed with HE, if a case-by-case- agreement were required, the contractor would necessarily need to explain their rates applied on each claim, a laborious process that would require a calculation of the costs, at the time of the asset’s (staff, plant, materials) engagement:

a. The date of incident / attendance would involve one set of calculations
b. The date of repair another set of calculations

h) 20/06/2017 your General Counsel wrote:

‘What is important is that the recovery rates and costs being charged to insurers are reasonable. We believe they are …’

Unless there was a schedule of rates to review and consider, what was he commentating upon and how could he reach such a conclusion? It appears I will require all information to which Mr. Reardon was referring, what he reviewed.

i) This is a ‘Cost reimbursable service: the service provider is reimbursed the actual costs they incur in carrying out the works, plus an additional fee’. The actual costs are maintained on a schedule which ‘in accordance with the contracts, the prices are adjusted by the contract price adjustment for inflation on an annual basis’ The existence of the schedule is evidenced by:

j) To date I have collated numerous responses that support the existence of a schedule of rates, to include contractors refusing to supply them; acknowledging their existence. These can be found at:

Defined Costs – Evidence a Schedule of Rates Exists

Area 10 Defined Costs – A schedule exists.

I have noted that since at least 2016, you have sought to keep the rates secret, for example:

06 July 2016
… we do hold information that is relevant to your request 04 June 2016 but regret to inform you of my decision not to disclose this information.

In your request of 04 June 2016 you asked: I originally asked for –

How many pricing methodologies has Kier Highways Ltd used over the past 5 years when charging Highways England for ad hoc work or when repairing damage to the highway, barriers or signage?
What were the pricing methodologies?
When did they come into effect?
What increases in charges have been agreed year on year?
• There have been annotations made and I am asking what increases in charges have been agreed year on year with Kier Highways Ltd?
• The specific values agreed and that have occurred.
It seems the contacts have been in place for years. For each contract what was agreed and what has occurred, the actual percentages or sums.

The information you requested is being withheld in reliance on the exemption(s) in section(s) 43 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).

Price adjustment factors and discounts are set out under the specific contracts, though I
believe your question is framed with regard to Damage to Crown Property by third
parties. With regard to the latter, as stated above, this is claimed upon either CECA
rates or the principle of Defined Costs using Notional Rates. The latter, in essence, are
the average costs of a person, plant or equipment captured over a time period to
provide an average hourly cost. Given the rolling nature, the costs will vary over time
though and this should not be confused with price fluctuation flowing from discount or
inflation. As stated, the principles and rationale behind Defined Cost plus Fee is freely
available on the internet.

Information is available online, such as:

The Contractor provides forecasts of the total Defined Cost of the service for each Financial Year, updated at the intervals (probably monthly) set out in the Contract Data.

It appears that, for 5 years, HE sought to keep DCP rates secret by claiming the costs were ‘commercially sensitive’ or requests ‘vexatious’. However, following an HE witness 11/2018, informing a Tribunal that said rates were NOT commercial sensitive, HE now say ‘not held’.

As DCP rates, or ‘base rates’ are said to be the same to HE and TP’s disclosing these figures would enable Third Parties to:

1. Correctly calculate a claim against them
2. Understand that they are NOT being charged in accordance with a contractual arrangement as
a. The contractor claims
b. a Court has been advised
3. realize Highway England have failed to act upon this and permitted

I understand the sub-threshold claims include an additional third party claims overhead because the Service Provider is pursuing the case the whole way through (rather than the claim being pursued against the insurer by Highways England) and therefore incurring additional costs – the ‘additional’ amount is supplementary to the base rates.

Asset Support Contracts (ASC) are the subject of schedules of rates; ASC and DCP and likely fall within Contract Data Part 2. It is the DCP Rates to which I am referring and expect the rates to be reconciled with.

Yours faithfully,

P. Swift


28/03/2019 received 02/04/2019 from Highways England Internal Review – Full Response

Further to your email dated 8 March 2019 regarding an Internal Review of our response to your request under the Freedom of Information Act it has been passed to me to conduct an internal review of the way in which your request (ref 768,326) was handled.

In your e-mail you raised several points, however having read through the e-mail and previous correspondence we have concluded that only one of these points is covered by the scope of an Internal Review which is I asked on what date you received the information. To ensure the review of this is thorough I have broken this down in chronological order beginning with the oldest correspondence. Our response is shown in italics below your requests in bold.

On the 29 November 2018 you sent e-mail with regards to a response provided previously under FOI 766,898 asking amongst other things –
Thank you for the information. Could you please clarify the response by providing the following: 1. On what date did you receive the information
The information was requested following receipt of your request and received on 23 November 2018.

On the 8 January 2019 you requested the following clarification of FOI 768,326
Q1. On what date did you receive the information
A: The information was requested following receipt of your request and received on 23 November 2018
Query / clarification:
I understand you are sent the information by way of an Annex 19 report i.e. it is not necessary for you to have sought the information from Kier Highways, rather there is a contractual obligation to send this to you i.e. it was (or should have been) in your possession when I made the request.
a) Is my understanding (above) correct?
While there is an obligation to provide the requested information under Annex 19 the obligation is not uniform for all ASCs. Annex 19 in respect of Area 9 states that the information is provided as required by Highways England. Therefore, this information was requested following receipt of your FOI request and the information provided accordingly.

You then e-mailed on the 8 March 2019 asking for an Internal Review regarding the following I asked on what date you received the information. I have now completed my review of the correspondence and discussed the information provided with my colleagues, who have confirmed that the date the information was received was the 23 November 2018.

Having reviewed the response provided by my colleagues I am satisfied that the original response was correct.

With regards to the content of the rest of your e-mail dated 8 March 2019 please allow me to set out the following. An Internal Review can only address the questions and responses provided in the original request and not new questions. In your e-mail we have viewed a number of the points raised as new questions, have therefore treated them as such and raised them as a new FOI request. These will be responded to separately under Ref. 769,825.

With regard to the below points which raised in your 8 March 2019 e-mail we have viewed them as statements and as such have not formed part of either the Internal Review or the new request for information.
It is stated that:

the Defined Cost for an AIW will be calculated on a case by case basis in accordance with the contractual definition, there is no schedule including rates.

This is believed to be false. It is understood costs are necessarily compiled on a case by case basis. However, that this is undertaken by reference to an agreed schedule of rates OVER threshold and should occur UNDER threshold. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of the evidence and commons sense:

a) It contradicts the consistent costs we have seen throughout periods on above and below threshold claims. For example, for over a year the cost of an AIW to a TP in Area 9 was £73.05 where as to HE it was £23.71

b) Is undermined HE’s General Counsel stating, in late 2015, HE were charged £70.32 (the Area 3 rate charged to TP’s for many months)

c) The lack of a schedule would mean that any claim received by HE could not be reconciled pre-payment against an agreed price list to ensure the figures presented were correct.

Currently, a request for rates deemed ‘vexatious’ by HE has seen no mention that said schedule is mythical, that the entire request is pointless because, no matter what the outcome, the schedule does not exist, rather:

a. HE defended their ‘vexatious’ exemption with the ICO and received support
b. The matter was appealed and HE engaged Government Legal Department
c. The request was presented to a Tribunal who found the request was NOT vexatious
d. HE sought to challenge this and engaged a Barrister
e. The Tribunal denied the appeal

f) Time and time again, Green Claims staff have withheld the pricing schedule claiming it is ‘commercially sensitive’

As DCP rates, or ‘base rates’ are said to be the same to HE and TP’s disclosing these figures would enable Third Parties to:

1. Correctly calculate a claim against them
2. Understand that they are NOT being charged in accordance with a contractual arrangement as
a. The contractor claims
b. a Court has been advised
3. realize Highway England have failed to act upon this and permitted

Jonathan Drysdale
Freedom of Information Officer

 


HE references: 767 723 / 767723 / 768 326 / 768326 / 769 825 / 769825 / CMA ref: U05B457


 

769,825 continues here