Lambeth Council Answer my FOI request about how it handles leasehold properties

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

The art of grassing with Tracy Ann

For some time I have been ignoring Tracy Ann Oberman on Twitter.  A task I have achieved with some success due to a facility known as the block button despite the fact that she's always all over it spewing endless tweets that are like a form of rhetorical urticaria.

For those of you who are unaware of her Ms Oberman is Jewish and talks a lot about the Labour Party and anti-Semitism.  She does acting stuff and writes for the Jewish Chronicle and if one was to believe her tweets it’s pretty much like the Dreyfus Affair in Labour these days…   

                   A Labour party CLP meeting

This may well be true (I cannot say as I left the part a few years ago for pecuniary reasons) but she seldom fully identifies what she’s complaining about in detail so I can’t go into more detail than that but she does go on and on … on this subject.  If you go over to the Spectator there's a compedium of every anti-Semitic incident in Corybn's Labour so I don't want to waste time and internet space repeating it.  Besides anti-Semitism in Labour must be a big porblem because Tracy Ann keeps telling us that it is to a point which I found tedious...  So I pressed the block button.

As I understand the anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour party … Tracy continually calls Labour party members anti-semitic and they call her other names in response and this cycle continues endlessly with neither side being able to compromise.  Perhaps this is because there is no possible compromise.

Anyway, being a coward who doesn’t want to get involved, be labelled anti-semitic etc I walked away mentally and pressed the block button on Tracy some time ago... which I thought was something of a success for me.   

But blow me down… I was only reading the Metro the other day and she’s banging on about only suing all people on twitter who disagree with …sorry libel her.  The alternative options of blocking them or shutting her own cake hole being seemingly no use in this situation but ...  well… I’m not saying she’s got nothing to complain about but isn’t it a bit obsessive screenshotting every single less than flattering tweet…?

…she also seems very sure that everyone who hates her is part of an organised conspiracy run out of Labour Party HQ …which seems unlikely simply because I don’t think the Labour party under Corbyn is that organised… (I get this impression from the fact it has just split).  Also if we're going to reference Westerns I would question her strategy based on the number of times the "man with no name" wins...

As I say I try very hard to be ignorant of all this but never-the-less out of sheer self-publicity-persistence she has broken through my carefully constructed wall of ignorance about her via the Metro.  Oh dear… 

Call me old fashioned by there just seems something nasty about threatening everyone who disagrees with you or even is rude to you in this way.   

I suppose I’m allowed to say this as I have only 371 followers … but … 

I think it was Arthur Daley who said "Nobody likes a grass, Tracy......" besides which the penchant of her solictor for going round threatening all and sundry with litigation and demanding addresses does not seem to me entirely in line with the pre-libel protocol for litigation (see here).  Should he not be identifying first the exact words complained of and the redress requested (for example removal and/or compensation) in the first instance in order to attempt to settle the matter out of court?  Instead he seems to claim that he needs to go to "great expense" to recover the accused's addresses when there is no pecuniary need for this (as far as I can see) at this particular juncture.  Besides which going after 70 people at once seem to me as at best something of an expensive scattergun approach to justice or at worst ...?

The Chamberlain of London politely refunds me but admits no wrongdoing

I successfully appealed my PCN from the City of London on the grounds that the letter they send out is mathematically misleading.

The letter threatens to increase the £65 charge by 100 per cent if not paid within 14 days but neglects to explain that if the driver mounts a challenge then the 14 grace period restarts from the point at which the City of London recieves the letter as explained on the authority's website.  

Not content with doubling the charge the letter then threatens to tripple it if not paid within 28 days which it describes as a "50 per cent increase" when I actually make it a 200 per cent increase.  This achievement in sophistry is achieved by arguing that the charge is actually £130 and will be discounted by 50 per cent if paid within 14 days and increased by 50 percent if not paid within 28 days.  Whereas in all practical terms the charge is £65 - trippled if you don't pay within 28 days.   

I also argued that the letter is wrong under the terms of Wednesbury unreasonableness because it claims that a charge can never be reversed once paid which denies the agency of the City of London in cashing the payment and argued that since I had sent them a physical cheque which is a push-pull transaction then they must have exercised invidiual agency during the act of cashing it and that it is not legal for an authority to deny responisbility in this way.

The Chamberlain of London says he is very sorry but he has no control over the wording of his letters - they are entirely dictated to him by Act of Parliament...

City of London PO Box 270, London EC2P 2EJ
Switchboard 020 7606 3030
www.cityoflondon.gov.uk
DX 121781

Penalty Charge Notice (PCN): CL55350099
Vehicle Registration: GK13BZF
Department of the Built Environment
Carolyn Dwyer BEng (Hons), DMS, CMILT, FCIHT
Director of the Built Environment
Telephone 020 7332 3366
Minicom 020 7332 3545
Fax 020 7332 3776
Email pto@cityoflondon.gov.uk

Our ref CL55350099
Case Officer
S McGregor

Dear Mr Miller

Thank you for your communication in relation to the above PCN. Your email has been
passed to me to respond as the relevant manager. I apologise for my delay in replying.
I appreciate your frustration with the PCN letter sent to you. The wording on that letter is
prescribed by law so we are limited on the information we can put on the letter. The reason
the discount rate exists is to encourage motorists to pay without challenge and to reduce
administration on both sides. In practice most, but not all, local authorities will keep the case
at the discounted rate whilst dealing with any challenge from the PCN recipient. This is the
most practical approach we can take within the legislation and it is not deception.
In relation to conditional payment, unfortunately this is also not permitted by the regulations.

The payment address is in Sheffield and the appeal address is in the City of London. Payment
is an acceptance of liability so our contractor in Sheffield will simply present the cheque
which is why we have a clear notice on the PCN which says to not pay if you wish to
challenge the notice. It would take Parliament to change the legislation for our notices to be
clearer.

I have however reviewed your case and cancelled it under the terms below. The refund
should already be with you. Please let me know if it is not.

The PCN was issued to the above vehicle for failing to comply with a prohibition on certain
types of vehicle (motor vehicles) - only buses and pedal cycles allowed Monday to Friday
between 7am and 7pm. This is because the above vehicle has been seen to have passed
through a sign prohibiting certain class of vehicle from accessing Bank Junction during the
restricted time(s).

Since Monday 22 May 2017, the ‘Bank on Safety’ experimental traffic scheme, aimed at
reducing collisions and improving road safety, became operational meaning that only buses
and pedal cycles are able to cross Bank Junction, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 7am to 7pm. Other vehicles will be rerouted via advanced warning signs on the
approaches to the area and the junction.

The Court of Common Council approved a report on 13 September 2018 that
recommended making the experimental scheme permanent and as of 25 September 2018
the scheme came permanently into operation.

The Bank Junction comprises the approaches of Princes Street, Threadneedle Street, Cornhill,
Poultry, Lombard Street, King William Street and Queen Victoria Street.
Blue bus and cycle only signs are displayed at the entry points of the restriction. Advanced
directional signs are also in place to give advance warning to the restriction to further assist
with alternative routes.

A further selection of maps and information regarding the restriction including loading areas,
vehicle length and access routes to each of the approach arms can be found at
www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/bankonsafety.

Having given consideration to your case, I have taken the decision to cancel the PCN as a
gesture of goodwill and a warning of the restrictions in place.

I would add that this should not be viewed as a precedent for any future cases as we look
at each and every case individually upon its merits.

Furthermore, the City expects all drivers to comply with any restrictions that are in place and
should you receive a PCN in similar circumstances it may be enforced.

Minority Report

Tell me if Im wrong...

Theresa May had 318 MPs
The Unionists had 10 MPs
So the government when elected had 328 MPs
You need 326 to form a government (650/2 + 1).

So if 3 Tories have resigned Theresa May and the Unionists only have 325 MPs
You need 326 to form a government (650/2 + 1). 
So they are running a minority government
without a supply and confidence deal in place.

Isnt that unconstitutional ?

Tell me if I'm wrong?

Shouldn't we have a general election or something?

ISIS calling, ISIS calling ...

There’s only one thing worse than Brexit on TV at the moment and that’s Shamima Begum.  ISIS having been defeated Shamima now wants to come back home so her daughter can get NHS treatment.  Her previous two offspring having died of being born into a war zone Shamima now wants our sympathy.  A one woman hot button issue she pervades my TV night and day with her untidy mouth and grating accent... 

For journalists seem to love filming her – in the same way that rubberneckers like looking at car crashes.  Please give it a rest!  The woman is just so tedious.  Blessed with all the charm of a bag of drawing pins she says things like “it wasn’t her intention to be a poster girl” as if anyone would put her on a poster.  Most of her other comments aren’t even cogent enough to relate or analyse yet they are poured into my home as if they mean something. 

Watching journalists feed her self-incriminating leading questions is like watching a child lift up a stone to see if there are any creepy crawlies underneath to play with.  Not that she needs much prompting to show her support for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has not diminished.  But she tries to look and sound not a fanatic … and fails over and over…

Then again she clearly struggles to put her thoughts into anything vaguely resembling coherent (let alone cogent) sentences and comes out with muddled thinking that we’re all supposed to analyse seriously. 

The bleeding heart lefties say that she was groomed and can’t be held accountable for her actions (despite the age of criminal responsibility being 12 last time I looked) and the right have nothing but scorn and vitriol.  “All twelve year olds are stupid politically,” say people who have grown up to be stupid politically. Maybe I was a bit of a stick in the mud or maybe it was just a lack of opportunity but I don’t remember committing treason when I was 12.  The right can’t wait to cast the first stone…

But really I think her problem is that she was just a bit thick.  She seems to think Syria under ISIS was just like “anywhere else” but with a “few bombs”.  The fact that she has 2 dead children by the age of 20 is not something she can connect with ISIS its self…  Save us.  You can see why she was so easily recruited to ISIS whenever she talks … there’s little between the ears.  Well, there doesn’t seem to be much… either that or she hides her intelligence well or… who cares… leave her there - it's Darwinism at work...

Why did these girls join ISIS?  Well, let’s just say we can see the appeal of a cult that says women should not be educated to women who don’t want to be… Honestly it makes you appreciate William Joyce ...