Dear Lynda Crawford,
Thank you for your reply dated the 23rd July 2008, but I am
confused by your statement that I have not included an address for
correspondence, as I was under the impression that an email address
would be sufficient.
I refer you to the Department of Constitutional Affairs' FOI
Procedural Guidance web page which states;
"There is no obligation to comply with a request for information if
it does not give a return address. If a request is received by
email and, although no postal address is given, the email address
of the sender is included, then this should be treated as the
return address."
http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/guidance/proguide/chap04.htm
As I have provided you with an email address, please use this as my
correspondence address, as previously requested.
In reference to your point about Section 14 of the Act, I can
assure you that this request is by no means vexatious in spirit,
nor is it a duplication of any request made by myself, as this is
the first FOI request I have submitted to Rother District Council.
If you consider my request to be either vexatious or a duplication,
and are therefore refusing to release the requested information,
please could you adhere to section 17 of the Act, formally
notifying me of your refusal and also state the reasons behind your
decision.
As an aside, please could you consider this email to be an
application for consent to re-use the above requested information.
If a charge needs to be made, please could you advise me on your
standard charge for re-use of information (if applicable) or the
factors that you have taken into account when calculating the
charge.
Yours sincerely,
Sam Slatt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about#officers
-------------------------------------------------------------------