Response to Appeal Letter

Dear Ms Waya,

Thank you for your email of 20 December 2018.


“In light of your reasons for choosing to appeal, I should reiterate the following comment in my previous email:


I cannot see that there is a lawful basis for confirming or denying to the whole world whether the information requested in relation to the two properties in question is held. Clearly, there may be legitimate reasons for releasing this information to you or to others. However, that is not the same as releasing it to everyone else.”


Thank you for repeating yourself parrot fashion as though I am completely stupid and underlining your words in case I have learning difficulties that prevented me from comprehending them the first time.


In my previous email I explained that I do not believe that all of the 5 questions I asked would reveal personal data about anyone if answered.  Questions such as

“"Does the Council have any sanctions for continual lease violations?"

and

"Is it true that the Council is excempt from right to buy laws with regards to the freehold?"

and

“Does [the property]  have a file? And if it does can we see it (note: I don't need you to digit out now)?"

 are so general as to reveal nothing meaningful at all about anybody.

I also believe your assertion that all FOI requests will end in the data provided being disseminated to the “whole world” to be a specious smokescreen of an argument.  Not every person who gets an FOI answered is going to chose to publicise the information and nor do they all have platforms with a significant digital readership to publish them on.  Believe it or not internet traffic does not randomly materialise at HTML pages it has to be driven there by the publication of interesting content.  The answers to these questions are actually not very interesting to anyone except the person who asked them so I fail to see a huge danger in disseminating them. This is an attempt to end the public's right to question the government by accusing every citizen of being some kind of media personage - there is no rational reason to believe such a thing ...only the government's own paranoia.  Also by definition no one can control information once disseminated - this seems a poor argument for not disseminating information ... that it may be used one day by a 3rd party as yet unknown.  By it the government is attempting to take on the responsibilities of the private citizens to whom they disseminate information - but the government is not responsible for the actions of persons outside the government.  In the final analysis this argument for refusing to answer is little more than "the people are not to be trusted".

The reason for asking for the information in the first place has long dematerialised but the obtuseness of yourself and other public officials in refusing to answer the queries and, indeed, continually purporting that the 5 separate queries are all invalidated on one single ground of being “a violation of data protection” has spurred me on to appeal because it is simply ludicrous.  I believe actually the purpose of these objections is not data protection but obfuscation mixed with passive aggression.

So to repeat myself again as if you have learning difficulties … I wish to appeal your decision on the following grounds

"The following questions remain unanswered:
"Why is the Council scaffolding the same property twice in 3 years?"
This is not a matter for personal data protection because the entire street can observe
when the house is scaffolded ...

There are actually 4 leaseholders.  At what point does personal data privacy over-ride
public interest.  If I asked the same question about a Council property with 100 residential units woud it be blocked because I am invading 100 people's privacy?  And people wonder why Grenfell Tower burnt down.

"The question of how the leaseholds divide up has now been resolved but not the question…


"As there is no RTM company does the Council as the Freeholder take on this role?"


This is a policy question not a personal question.  I am asking the Council
to clarify its interpretation of the leases of the property as they are unclear."

The question of how and who manages leashold properties at the Council is a legitimate one which affects all leaseholders to whom the Freeholder is the Council within the Borough

"Does the Council have any sanctions for continual lease violations?"


This is a policy question for the Council about any Leasehold property for which it owns the Freehold

"Does [the property]  have a file? And if it does can we see it (note: I don't need you to dig
it out now)?"


Again this is a policy/data question.  I am not asking to see the data.
I am asking what data exists for this Leasehold, where it is stored and who can see it?"

It seems not unreasonable to me for ask if a council owned property has a file
and I do not see what this reveals about the owner?


The ownership of property is a matter of public record anyway and can be accessed for £3 down the land registry

"Is it true that the Council is excempt from right to buy laws with regards to the freehold?"

As I said before this is a policy question not related to any particular address that applies to all Council Freehold properties...

"Is it the Council's policy to sell the freehold of such properties"

...this also is a general policy question with regards to the Council's role as a Freeholder."

Thank you


Anthony