Dear Sir or Madam,

On how many occassions has the SNDC entered into deeds identifying
that it was a mortgagor in possession without registering its
mortgage at the Land Registry.

Please also identify the ethnic origin of the registered title
holders at the Land Registry where the SNDC has sought to sell
their land without having a legal mortgage (as required to be
registered at the Land Registry).

Please further identify the number of times that SNDC has changed
charges registered by itself as local land charges to ensure that
they do not affect people who are from groups identified as being
discriminated against on racial grounds by legislation like the
Race Relations Act.

Please identify by name the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet
portfolio holder for planning and their Political Party and the
ward they represent if the SNDC should have entered into property
transactions that affect people from minority racial groups without
registering any mortgage the SNDC might have claimed with the Land
Registry. Please further provide copies of any documentation that
they might have identifying that they support acts of possible
racism by the SNDC. It is known that the Leader of the Council has
investigated at least one case where the SNDC did not register any
mortgage with the Land Registry and has sought to disposs and
disenfranchise people from a racially discriminated group.

Finally, please identify the racial origin of the Council's
Solicitor's - and if they have any spent convictions.

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Hardwicke Carruthers

Dear Mr Carruthers

I refer to your request which is being considered. You may be aware that we have 20 working days in which to respond to FOI requests and you will therefore hear from me again by 17 December 2008 or earlier if possible.

For your information, the Act defines a number of exemptions, which may prevent release of the information you have requested. There will be an assessment and if any of the exemption categories apply then some or all of the information may not be released. You will be informed if this is the case, including your rights of appeal.

There may be a fee payable for ‘reasonable disbursement’ costs such as postage and photocopying. This will be considered and you will be informed if a fee is payable. In this event the fee must be paid before the information is processed and released. The 20 working day time limit for responses is suspended until receipt of the payment.

If you have any queries or concerns then please let me know. If you do contact us again concerning this request, please quote FOI 08-197.

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Officer
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Carruthers

Further to your request below, I believe that this issue of the appointment of an elections officer is a matter which you have raised before.

Under section 14 (1), the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states that "Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious."

Requests around this issue have been raised by you many times and I believe this request can be classed as vexatious as I believe the request could be seen as being designed to cause disruption or annoyance and also lacks any serious purpose or value. In my view, this request is unreasonable and vexatious, and is therefore outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

You have a right of appeal against our decision. In the first instance this appeal should be internal and we enclose a copy of our complaints procedure.

<<Appeals Leaflet.doc>>

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Officer
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

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 South Norfolk
District Council's handling of my FOI request 'Sale of Land'.

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

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Mr Carruthers

I refer to your request for an internal review of the decision to declare your FOI request relating to the sale of land, FOI 08-197 vexatious.

Since I issued my decision together with the Council's internal appeal procedures, I have subsequently become aware of version 4 of the Information Commissioner's guidance on vexatious requests which states that,

"You will not need to issue a new refusal notice if you have already given the same person a refusal notice for a previous vexatious or repeated request and it would be unreasonable to issue another one."

As you know, one of your previous FOI requests, FOI 08-103 was deemed to be vexatious, we conducted an internal appeal and you have now appealed, as of course is your right, to the Information Commissioner. In light of that appeal, I consider that the internal appeals notice did not need to be issued and I confirm therefore we will not be holding another internal panel.

If you wish to take this further, you will need to appeal to the Information Commissioner, and I attach the contact details below for your information:

Office of the Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545745
Email: [email address]
Website: http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Officer
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Right2Know,

many thanks for your reply. the issue shall be raised with the ICO
as it is different to previous requests. It is not beleived that
the SNDC has a legal adviser that would be able to advise its FoI
review due to conflicts of interest.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS