He Transparency and Good Governance Council has asked for Renfeat the request of a citizen, who indicates how many times his Web page. However, the rail operator has answered saying that it does not count these failures. Given this, the entity has asked the company to indicate how much money invests on its page.
In March and April 2024, two citizens submitted requests to Renfe to learn about the annual cost of the web and the Mobile application of the company, as well as the companies responsible for its design and maintenance.
In addition, the interested parties also requested information about the falls of the web between 2014 and 2024, the total number of application downloads broken down by platforms and the number of devices that had it installed.
After that, Renfe responds arguing that the questions raised required to prepare specific reports that would distract personnel from their operational and business functions.
Passengers at the Santa Justa station in Seville. (Photo: EP).Given this refusal, the applicants went to the Transparency and Good Governance Council to claim, claiming that Renfe’s position was “arbitrary.” Citizens defended that the required information was accessible and that providing it did not imply a complexity that justified the elaboration of a «report ad hoc».
This is recorded recently issued by the body in charge of ensuring compliance with the Transparency Law and Information Accesscollected by EPin which the claims submitted by the two people who requested the referred information are estimated.
The Renfe website
Given this situation, the Ministry of Transportation responded to the claim of the web data by saying that who requested them had no other intention than to “express their discontent with the operation of the Renfe website”, and added that detailing the detail the website costs It does not imply a “aggregation or sum of data”, but also required a previous and exhaustive treatment of several files corresponding to a period of more than a decade. As for the data on the number of falls, the department replied that he could not contribute them because he did not register them.
On his side, the Ministry said that the claim of the data of the app I was not “motivated or founded” and was limited to arbitrary describing the need for a report ad hoc to respond to the request.
The Transparency Council has partially estimated the claim of information to Renfe and has urged the company to facilitate the cost of its website for years and companies that have been responsible for their design and maintenance. With regard to the number of falls, transparency did admit the argument of the Ministry.
For its part, transparency has estimated the request for Renfe to report the cost of the app and of the company that is responsible for its maintenance, but has not admitted the request to detail the download number by platform and the number of devices that have been discharged by supposing a “complexity” that would imply a specific report.
