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)
Dot Cotton Corner - Zionism & God's promises to Abraham
A lot of Zionists on Twitter have been telling me recently that if I don't believe God gave Israel to the Jews for all time then I do no...

Least ignored nonsense this month...
-
Well, I went on the Speed Awareness course. It was somewhat improved from the running traffic lights course I went on some years ago in tha...
-
Once upon a time I purchased an HG Smart TV but despite the artificial intelligence revolution and its claims be Mensa level clever it doe...
-
Today there are 289 confirmed cases in Croydon, out of a local population of 385,346. Yesterday it was 261 so once again I have been confin...
-
Labour Minister Dame Diana Johnson said today that "I think stores need to play their part in making sure that items that are high valu...
-
I have now watched again all of Allo Allo. Previously I had only watched it once. Well, I say again… I gave up previously some time around...
-
The video above is so depressing a toffee nosed man who sits in the Lords says in a toffee nosed way that it isn't fair but he seems t...
-
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...
-
On 21st August, at 16:14 local time, Lucy Connolly once Britain's most wanted woman, walked out of HMP Peterborough Prison hand-in-hand ...
No comments:
Post a Comment