FOI Team,
 
I see you have had 7 requests from this web site.  Amazingly, as a small District Council, we have had 11. 
 
I am seriously concerned about where this is going.  We have coped with the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but only on the basis of restraint and requests being made by research companies, journalists and private individuals such as our own Council-Tax payers who have a reasonable interest in the information.  I think the website allows anonymous requests for information to be made virtually as easily as a Google search, but that was clearly not what Parliament intended having regard to section 8.  Whilst we are able to refuse vexatious and repeated requests under section 14, that is of little use if we don't know who is making the requests and where they are. In fact, this Council was only bombarded with requests when I took a stand on the need for a  correspondence address, and eight of the requests had a common theme which raises the suspicion that the requests are not coming from even anonymous members of the public unassociated with the site, but if the site achieves real "cult" status all public authorities will be overwhelmed.
 
I fear that the first casualty of this would be the responsible journalists and members of the public who have been making direct requests to public authorities.
 
 I see in relation to "Food Wastage" you are taking issue with whether "FOIRequester" is a valid name for the purposes of section 8.  In connection with that I would respectfully draw your attention to the advice in the web site which suggests that a real-sounding pseudonym is preferable to a made-up  one. You seem to have processed requests from "Paul" and a 19th-century American author, and I suggest that taking a stand on an obvious pseudonym is futile. I attach a copy of my letter to the Information Commissioner setting out my concerns regarding whether these requests comply with section 8 (1) (b) in relation to the need for an address for correspondence.  It would be particularly helpful if it could be confirmed that the passage on the DCA web site, upon which they rely, about accepting an e-mail address as a valid  address, is simply advice to civil servants rather than a legal ruling.
 
Regards,
David.
David Edwards
Interim Solicitor, 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