Dear Wellington Regional Council,

This is a follow up request to https://fyi.org.nz/request/9008-informat...

I am requesting all correspondence between GWRC and the operator (Transurban?) about a particular bus. I have been told by a GWRC staff member that correspondence was made on 17th, 19th and 21st of September 2018. This may not be all the correspondence between GWRC and the operator. This would have been in regards to a complaint made about a driver behaving dangerously around a cyclist (case number 157935).

I understand that some of the correspondence may include personal information (such as drivers name), rather than refusing to send the entire correspondence, could you rather just redact the personal information.

In addition, can you confirm whether the NZ Police were or were not in contact with GWRC at all during this complaint process.

The bus information is:
Bus number 3424
Date: 17th September 2018
Time: from 6:30pm to 7:30pm
Route number 7 - Kingston
Approximate location at 7pm: bus stop 7714, Brooklyn road by Nairn street (across road from the Renouf Tennis Centre)
Operator: Transurban

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Helen Plant,

Thanks for that. Couple of notes before I believe this is complete.

First off, can you please reply with my personal details redacted (specifically email address in attachement 3, cells F48, G48, G114). I would prefer to keep them off public forums for the sake of spam. My full name is fine to stay as I am requesting this publicly.

For the correspondence requested, in one of the emails received from Bruce Horsefield, he stated " just after midday on 19 September we received notification that one of the communications operators for the bus company had identified the driver and that that information was forwarded to the depot where the driver is employed." However, none of the documents you attached suggested that the driver was identified. Can this correspondence please be attached as originally requested. See note below about what is defined as "information held" in terms of the LGOIMA.

In addition, Bruce stated "The bus operator confirmed that the depot Operations Manager would be speaking to the driver concerning the incident. This was conveyed to you via email on 20 September 2018.". Again, there is no sign of the correspondence where the bus operator confirms that the Operations Manager will speak with the driver.

In addition, Bruce stated "We subsequently received further advice that on the day after this incident and prior to the driver being given his shift card for the service runs that he would be responsible for, a discussion occurred between that driver and the Depot Operations Manager.". Again, no sign of this correspondence.

As stated in this request, "This may not be all the correspondence between GWRC and the operator.", so this request requires all correspondence.

I believe that this correspondence listed above, and potentially other correspondence with the operator is "directly related" to this case, and was specifically asked in this request. I would like this provided please. If you are refusing to provide this information, can you please list the reason(s) why in accordance with the LGOIMA.

For the Police query, can you please confirm whether the Police contacted Transzurban. I believe that the Police contacted them, due to the following statements in Police file 181011/0350.
"Police emailed tranzurban on the 29/10/2018 requesting CCTV footage of incident."
"Police confirmed they had spoken directly to Tranzurban as part of their enquiries and stated
Tranzurban take all complaints seriously"
I would like acknowledgement from GWRC that the operator was contacted by the Police.

I should note that in that Police file, the CCTV footage provided to the Police were either not from the same bus, or from a different time/day, as the bus was not in the same location. Given that GWRC previously stated that the bus was at that location (OIA 2018 322), this suggests that the operator purposefully withheld information from the NZ Police during an investigation while acting as an agent for the GWRC.

I'll remind GWRC that as for whether this data is "held" by the agency, I refer to s 2(6) LGOIMA
"Any information held by an independent contractor engaged by any local authority in his or her capacity as an independent contractor is, for the purposes of this Act, deemed to be held by the local authority.", paraphrased "Information which an independent contractor to an agency holds in that capacity is deemed to be held by the agency"
I note that all the bus contractors (specifically Tranzurban) are independent contractors engaged by GWRC on behalf of Metlink and in their capacity of the independent contractors they hold the data of any correspondence between GWRC, between the operators and their respective staff, and confirmation of whether the Police were in contact or not.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Wellington Regional Council,

Can I please get an update on the missing correspondence on this one? It is past the due date I believe.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Wellington Regional Council,

Can I please get an update on the missing correspondence on this one? It is past the due date now.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Perfect thank you. Involvement with Police is now a lot more transparent. I will go back to them on that as looks much more like they said they contacted them but they didn't actually (given other reports from the Police with regards to buses).

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport