Newslink January 2022

News
Holding Sir Humphrey to account through
the maze that is an FOI request
Regular readers of Newslink may recall
that, during a review of the DVSA Annual
Report for 2020-21 in our August issue,
a short reference to an out-of-theordinary
payment by the agency to a
third party caught our eye.
Lurking on page 40 of the report it
read: ‘During the year one special
payment over £300,000 (2019-20: nil)
was made. The payment of £1,892,500
was for an agreed out of court
settlement of legal costs following a
failed prosecution led by DVSA.
‘A provision was made for this in the
2019-20 accounts but not reported
within losses and special payments as it
was uncertain how much would be
payable at that time.’
Now this is a serious amount of
money, which the DVSA appeared to
have paid out without any real concern.
Just how many driving examiners could
you add to the books on a two-year
contract for that amount of cash (about
30 – or just under 100,000 extra L-tests,
just in case you were wondering).
We wanted to know more, so we put
in a Freedom of Information request (an
FOI) to ascertain why the money had
been paid out, and to whom.
The official reply to our FOI wasn’t too
enlightening. It read: ‘This payment
relates to a settlement for a failed
prosecution involving multiple
government departments. The payment
was across a number of defendants,
relating to a single case.
‘The case was brought, by DVSA,
because we had evidence of criminal
wrongdoing and it passed the Public
Interest Test.
‘We settled out of court as we were able
to negotiate a lower settlement than
going to court to pay the costs of the
five defendants.’
Classic Sir Humphrey. A complete
answer... just not necessarily to the
question posed. You see, the original
question in full was clear: “What charges
were brought, and against whom? [no
reply] Which other government
departments were involved in bringing
the case? [no reply] How much was the
total bill for the defendants’ legal
charges? [no reply] If the total bill was
£1,892,500, why did the DVSA pick up
the full amount?” [no reply]
Anyone reading the official response
would realise that the question has not
been answered in full at all. Indeed,
there is more than hint of smoke and
mirrors going on.
Not to be undaunted, we decided to
launch an appeal against the FOI reply,
as it clearly hadn’t provided the
information we requested.
In our appeal we said: ‘I do not believe
your response answers my question. I
clearly asked for details of the case.
Please supply details of the full list of
charges brought, against whom, and
explain why DVSA picked up the full
‘‘
Good news... ‘I can confirm
that the DVSA holds the other
information that you have
requested...’ Hurray, the truth
will out... we will find out why
DVSA spent nearly two million
of your quids...
‘‘
legal bill after the case was dismissed.’
Our appeal took a while but finally it
landed at the end of November, shortly
after we published the December issue.
Again, eliciting the facts was rather akin
to the old ‘blood out of a stone’ maxim.
The FOI appeal reply read: ‘The
government department involved in
bringing the case is the Driving and
Vehicles Standards Agency (DVSA).
Prior to this both the Vehicle
Certification Agency (VCA) and the
DVSA investigated evidence around
alleged criminal misconduct.’
Ah, the VCA. That’s one question
answered. Makes you wonder why they
couldn’t say that the first time, but there
we are. But it’s curious: the VCA handles
UK type approval for auto products and
is responsible for certification under UK
type approval schemes. It also covers
dangerous goods, Conformity of
Production (CoP) (evidencing the ability
to produce a series of products that
exactly match the specification,
performance and marking requirements
outlined in the type approval
documentation) and vehicle imports, as
well as Fuel Consumption and CO 2
...
No reason for the bold type, there.
Nothing to see, move along...
So the chase is on and the pace
quickens. What else can be gleaned?
Good news; back to the appeal reply: “I
can confirm that the DVSA holds the
other information that you have
requested...”
Hurray, the truth will out. We will now
find out why the DVSA spent nearly two
million of your quids pursuing a pointless
court case against people whose
activities brought them into conflict with
the VCA... but hang on...
“This information is exempt from
disclosure section 32 of the FOIA
because it is held only by virtue of being
contained in a court record.
‘Under section 32(1)(a) information is
exempt from disclosure if it is held in
the custody of the court for the purpose
of proceedings in a particular cause or
matter.
‘The information requested was
originally obtained for the purposes of
proceedings meaning it is held ‘only by
virtue’ of being contained in a
document. An authority may still claim
16
NEWSLINK n JANUARY 2022