Eiger Capital ltd

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please provide the amount of outstanding debt owed to Westminster
City Council from the now liquidated company formally trading as
Eiger Capital ltd, 20 Balderton Street, LONDON, W1K 6TL?
I believe the outstanding debt is made up of outstanding business
rates owed to Westminster City Council.

Yours faithfully,

Nathen Brooke

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Westminster City
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Eiger Capital ltd'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ei...

Yours sincerely,

Nathen Brooke

Dear FOI team,

It has now been 50 days since I first submitted this FOI requests,
and you have yet to even acknowledge me. I now see that in another
more recent FOI request you claim this request does not even
exists.

Please can you at least now acknowledge receipt of of this request,
and explain in detail the problem with answering my question in
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act ?

Yours sincerely,

Nathen Brooke

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please can you at least now acknowledge receipt of of this request,
and explain in detail the problem with answering my question in
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act ?

Yours faithfully,

Nathen Brooke

Dear Sir or Madam,

I believe this website is working normally, as you have answered
much later FOI requests than this one. However you seem to have
completely ignored this question and have no intention of replying
to it, let alone sending an acknowledgement.

I will now have to pass this matter on to the information
Commissioner.

Yours faithfully,

Nathen Brooke

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Westminster City
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Eiger Capital ltd'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ei...

Your reasons for not answering this FOI request within the time
period specified within the law is not acceptable.

You cannot say that on receipt of my email your mailsweeper program
deleted the email, then in another paragraph claim not to have
received my email, you cannot say both, you either did receive the
email and then deleted it or you never received the email in the
first place, which is it?

You email system does not delete suspected spam emails, it diverts
them to a spam folder, so how was it that not one, but all my
emails on this request were deleted as you claim?

As you indicate your mailsweeper uses a points scoring system to
incorrectly identify emails as spam, please provide full details of
how my original email and all the subsequent follow up emails were
scored incorrectly? I would like details such as the scores based
on header information, mail server IP and key words in the body and
subject line?

Your law breaking was pointed out in another FOI request which you
did acknowledge. That FOI request specifically mentioned this FOI
request and gave the URL of this request. Therefore it would have
made no difference even if as you claim, my emails had all been
deleted, this makes your spam filter claim even more ludicrous. You
were made aware of this FOI request yet still broke the law by not
answering, please explain?

Your reasons for rejecting my FOI request may be acceptable if I
were asking for details for a company that was still trading, but I
doubt that. However this company is no longer trading, and the
information I am asking for is less than is available from
Companies House. To mention that there could be a chance that
someone may claim back a credit is plainly daft, as when this
company went in to liquidation there was in fact a debt owning on
the unpaid business rates, there can be no credit.

By your argument company accounts would not be publicly available
at Companies House as it may prejudice the commercial interests of
any person, therefore your rejection is again ludicrous. But this
is a more serious matter as we are dealing with a debt of public
money, tax payers money. The council has no problems in revealing
the details of individuals and embassies which owe public money
through unpaid PCN's. The council has no problems revealing through
publication on it's website, the private addresses of individuals
who raise a petition against council policy. This is all done
without the individuals consent and often without their knowledge.
Therefore your rejection on sections 43 (2) and (3) of the Act has
been misused in this case.

Yours faithfully,

Nathen Brooke

Dear Catherine

I would have thought you would have been keen to at least have the
decency to acknowledge my last email and provide a progress report,
but after over a month it seems not.

It suggests to me that you do not have any respect for the Freedom
of Information Act and adhering to the law, or any respect for the
public whom you serve. This is even despite the fact the IOC have
contacted WCC many times to remind you of your obligations.

If I still receive nothing from you I shall pass this on as a
complaint to the IOC.

Yours faithfully,

Nathen Brooke

Dear FOI,

Of course I will be complaining to the COI, and I am not at all
intimidated by your threat of considering my questions vexatious.

All Councillors should be very concerned that legal documents sent
to them maybe deleted from the council mail server without any
possibility of being recovered or without adequate explanation. No
one at the Council has enough knowledge of the mailsweeping
software used, to be able to provide details of the points scoring
methods, or it seems any desire to prevent such a disaster
happening again. Quite an incredible way to run an IT department.

It is my opinion that you ignored both my original question, all of
my reminders, and the subsequent reminders from a different FOI.
Unless that is, I were to accept your explanation, that if someone
alerts you to an unanswered FOI request you will do absolutely
nothing to address a possible IT problem and breech of the law.

But yet the moment the COI is mentioned in a follow up you suddenly
spring in to action and the mail sweeper stops blocking emails.

No wonder so many Councillors choose to use their own private email
addresses to conduct Council business, and it keeps them off the
FOI radar.

Yours sincerely,

Nathen Brooke