Paybyphone charges

​Request 772805235 

I note an SMS charge has now been added to the paybyphone.

1)Information regarding who the external provider is for this service, and how were they selected. Please provide correspondence and a conflict of interests check around this new charge.

2)Any minutes from meetings that this additional charge was discussed and agreed upon in.

3)Clarity over if this additional charge revenue goes to the States or the provider, as the profit margin for each text is large, particularly when approx. (a complete estimate, i would assume even more) 400 people use paybyphone daily.

4)Whether there will be an option to opt out of receiving the SMS and thus the additional charge. 

Response 

1 and 2

The external provider is PayPhone Limited. They were selected during a competitive tender process in March 2017. The optional 20p SMS charge has been in place since the contract as signed. The user can switch off the charge in their Settings. 

Correspondence and conflict of interest checks relating to the charge are exempt under Article 33(b) (Commercial Interests) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. 

Article 33 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response. 

3

Since contract renewal after the first 5 years of the service in 2022, 25% of the optional SMS reminder is paid to Government of Jersey. 

4

An option to opt out of the fee is already available in Settings.   

Article applied 

Article 33 - Commercial interests 

Information is qualified exempt information if – 

(a)     it constitutes a trade secret; or

(b)     its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information). ​

Public interest test

In applying this article, the following considerations were taken into account.  

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure   

• Disclosure of the information would ensure the general public are informed about the work plans related with PaybyPhone. 

• Disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public, preventing misuse of public contracts and favouritism. 

• Disclosure would also promote trust in the Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) by showing openness.
  

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information    

• The release of the transaction fees and percentage rates ('fees') could potentially disadvantage PaybyPhone and the Government of Jersey's ability to retain commercial advantage in any future tender process. 

• This could also result in the SPA's inability to secure best value for the taxpayer and this will likely prejudice the SPA as its bargaining power decreases. 

• Contract documents can contain proprietary methodologies, pricing structures, and operational strategies developed by the contractor. Making these public would unfairly advantage competitors and potentially reduce market participation in future tenders.
   
• The disclosure of the work plans may result in misinformed public debate regarding any mutually agreed changes to the original work plan.  Therefore, this could jeopardise the business relationship between the SPA and the contractor. 

• The disclosure of the work plans can invite undue interference from third parties who may misinterpret timelines or attempt to influence operational decisions, disrupting service delivery. For example, public stakeholders may react to methodologies used or maintenance schedules without understanding the technical or regulatory rationale, causing unnecessary delays or conflicts. 

• Technical terms, seasonal adjustments, or contingency protocols within work plans can be misunderstood by non-specialists. This may lead to misinformation and mischaracterisation of the contractor's performance. For example, seasonal reductions in mowing frequency for environmental reasons might be wrongly interpreted as neglect or cost-cutting. 

Considering all considerations above, while transparency and accountability is important, the public interest in disclosure must be weighed against potential harm caused by prejudice of the commercial interests and the risks of misinformation.  

The SPA has concluded that, on balance, the risk of causing harm caused by prejudice of the commercial interests and or concerns or spreading misinformation, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the benefits disclosing the information.