Some time ago (longer than I care remember) I put in an FOI (see here) to Lambeth Council asking them some basic questions about how they handle repairs in Leasehold housing. The Council said it couldn't answer the questions because it was an invasion of privacy for the other leaseholders. So I pointed out that not all the questions I asked were person or property specific.
I also made the point that if the Council can't answer questions about its properties because people live in them then that means it can't answer any housing questions whatsoever as almost all Council properties have someone living in them.
The case then escalated to the Information Commissioner's Office who then reverted back to the Council's original line of argument that it couldn't answer any questions at all because people lived in the property and I repeated my argument that not all the questions were property or person specific. After I had told them that the problem wouldn't go away simply by them repeating the same information back to me over and over as if I had learning difficulties...
The ICO then argued that the release of information under FOI constituted publication to "the whole world" to which I responded that I did not necessarily intend to publish it and even if I did I doubt that anybody would be interested. I also made the point that just because you publish something on the world wide web does not mean anyone will read it. First they would have to google it and secondly the website in question would have to have a large enough search engine ranking to show up. I believe this website sometimes gets as many as 30 hits an article - who can cope with that much public exposure?
I further made the point that once the Council releases information under FOI it no longer has responsibility for its dissemination under FOI and this is the whole point of FOI. By this point I had completely forgotten why I had put in an FOI and my need for the information had now long passed but who cares? We got there in the end.
Well, almost there. 4 out of 6 questions answered isn't bad - particularly since the lady who answers them is based in conveniently Winchester - a mere 64 miles from Lambeth. Apparently the Council doesn't understand the last two questions so can't answer them...? I haven't the patience to reply...
That said it's interesting at least the answer to the first question. Perhaps this explains why the Council like to leave scaffolding up for so long even if there is no work being done ... if the leaseholders are paying for it by the day. Mind you even that question is only partially answered as it doesn't break down the who the costs go to but ... who cares now?
Dear Mr Miller
With regards to your request for information, we are able to provide the following further response:
“Is scaffolding a free Council service? If not how much does it cost the leaseholders and the Council?
No. The cost for scaffolding is calculated according to the length of time advised by the contractors to complete the works to the property / building.
Does the Council have any sanctions for continual lease violations?
We do not have sanctions as such but will take enforcement action where necessary for any breaches of lease such as non-payment of services charges.
Why does the Council not inform leaseholders before putting up scaffolding?
Our normal practice is to inform all residents in the building.
Why do Council subcontractors not give written notice of visits as they are supposed to under schedule 4 section 2 (with 3 days’ notice)?
The normal practice is to give written notice of all visits.
Is it the Council's policy to sell the Freehold of a duel dwelling property without the consent of both parties?
No. The councils website has information on this https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/council-tenants-and-homeowners/homeowners/buying-the-freehold-guide
Is it true that the Council is exempt from right to buy laws with regards to the freehold?
We are unclear exactly what is being asked here; please can you clarify this part of the request?
Is it the Council's policy to sell the freehold of such properties?”
We are unclear exactly what is being asked here; please can you clarify this part of the request?
We hope this is helpful; please clarify the last two questions and we will provide a further response
Kind regards
Jane Shields LLB LLM
Policy & Communications Manager
(FOI Co-ordinator)
Corporate Complaints Unit
P.O. Box 734
Winchester
S023 5DG
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Women were prevented from taking the pill in the 1950's - Amnesty International
Saw this video online today and for my own sanity felt compelled to point out that women were not "prevented from taking contraceptio...

Least ignored nonsense this month...
-
Just when you think things couldn't get more bonkers down Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has jumped the shark and launched an unprovoked m...
-
Well, we all knew that the United States was going to take illegal unilateral action against Iran didn't we? Top hint was when Sir Jo...
-
Shopping in Sainsbury's these days is not far off visiting a police station. Before you even look at the shelves a giant TV Screen an...
-
Someone you vaguely know and trust from the TV said something that was so important it had to be removed from the internet because it neve...
-
Dear Anthony , Thank you for RSVPing to 💭🌹Thursday Be a Councillor: Croydon (Online)🌹💭 ! Thousands of people across the country are g...
-
Finally got round to watching Oppenheimer. Now I'm no great feminist but... Oh dear ... Someone obviously said to Christopher Nolan...
-
As the Master used to say in Doctor Who "for a lie to work it must be shrouded in truth". Therefore Jordan Peterson uses his ac...
-
I always admired Norman Tebbit for his column in the Telegraph. They obviously bunged him well for it but he put in so much more effort tha...
-
Apparently Dame Maureen Diane Lipman DBE says there's so much cancel culture everybody is too afraid to criticise the establishment anym...
-
The grand old Duke of York He had 10000 women Some were above our age of consent But in the US it is higher so then There legally a nonc...
No comments:
Post a Comment