Lynda, not to my knowledge. By all means ask HR to process to save time but I think we should maintain our position re an "address for correspondence" unless/until there is a clear judicial ruling that an e-mail address suffices. Without that, how do we detect repeated/vexatious requests? This could be Stephen Hardy.


Regards,
David.
David Edwards
Legal Services Manager, Rother D.C.
Town Hall, Bexhill TN39 3JX Tel: 01424-787840
www.rother.gov.uk

P please consider the environment, and do not print this email unless it is really necessary


-----Original Message-----
From: Lynda Crawford
Sent: 04 April 2008 08:14
To: David Edwards
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Amounts paid to Common Purpose and similar organisations

David Has the Act changed?  Shall I proceed with this anyway as I think it will be a straight no answer from HR.

-----Original Message-----
From: Watcher62 [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 03 April 2008 20:12
To: David Edwards
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Amounts paid to Common Purpose and similar organisations


     Dear Sir or Madam,

     Further to my earlier message I now note that the Act does not
     require a postal address to be provided. An e-mail address is
     sufficient. Please therefore reply to my request.

     Yours sincerely, A. N. Eastwood