Land Charges II

Waiting for an internal review by South Norfolk District Council of their handling of this request.

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Sir or Madam,

please provide a copy of the internal audit report on land charges (SNC/10/21) published on 20 August 2009 according to the Accounts and Audit Committee and any subsequent revisions.

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Right2Know,

Dear

Thank you for your request of information that is being considered. You
may be aware that we have 20 working days in which to respond to Freedom
Of Information (FOI) requests and you will therefore hear from me again
by 2 December 2009 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.

If any of the information you have requested is not contained in a
recorded format, South Norfolk Council is not obliged to create
information for the purpose of responding to your request

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 09-268.

Regards

Emma Nangle
Information Rights Officer
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton Norwich
NR15 2XE
tel: 01508 533747
email: [South Norfolk District Council request email]
website: www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Right2Know,

Dear Mr Carruthers

Further to your request below, 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, namely land charges, have been raised by
you previously and declared vexatious. I believe this request can be
classed as vexatious as the request could be seen as being designed to
cause disruption or annoyance, lacks any serious purpose or value and
also the request can fairly be seen as obsessive. In my view, this
request is unreasonable and vexatious, and is therefore outside the
scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I intend to follow the latest guidance (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, several of your previous FOI requests have been classed as
vexatious and one, FOI 08-103 has been appealed to the Information
Commissioner. In light of that appeal, I consider that a further
internal review would not be appropriate and I confirm therefore we will
not be holding an 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/

Regards

Emma Nangle
Information Rights Officer
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton Norwich
NR15 2XE
tel: 01508 533747
email: [South Norfolk District Council request email]
website: www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Right2Know,

You are wrong... only requests related to the failure of SNDC to appoint an electoral registration officer (admitted to by SNDC) have been identified as being vexatious.. as this is against statute the Monitoring Officer (and Council Solicitor) have doubtlessly been chastised.. and asked to explain why SNDC officers do as they please..

Please supply a copy of the report it should be public domain anyway.. or do you have something to hide..

Internal review please..

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Right2Know,

Dear Mr Carruthers

Many of your requests have been identified as vexatious, not only those
that relate to the failure of SNDC to appoint an electoral registration
officer. For instance requests relating to Gypsy and Traveller sites and
one request regarding government guidance on curtains, blinds and soft
furnishings. As you will be aware a request can be classed as vexatious
if it could be seen as being designed to cause disruption or annoyance,
lacks any serious purpose or value and also if the request can fairly be
seen as obsessive.

As stated in my previous email, I am not offering the opportunity for an
internal review, for the reasons previously stated. Please note that I
have previously advised the course of action open to you and I advise
you that I will not be corresponding any further with you on this matter
and should you continue to correspond on this subject, I shall simply
file your emails.

Emma Nangle
Information Rights Officer
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton Norwich
NR15 2XE
tel: 01508 533747
email: [South Norfolk District Council request email]
website: www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Right2Know,

I am so sorry that you regard information requests that identify various failures of the SNDC as being vexatious. This is not the case. They relate entirely to the relationship that the elected representatives have formed with officers. It is simply fact that:

a) officers identified that they wished to take enforcement action against blinds fitted by a pub that it is assumed planning staff of the Council frequent;

b) the SNDC as experts have identified that the cost of a new pitch is in excess of £100,000 to central government and have then identified that other lower costs exist locally (whilst in the case of its grant application failing to identify that the site at harford bridge was occupied;

c) the current solicitor to the Council and Monitoring Officer are on record as identifying that appointment of both an electoral registration officer and a returning officer (with the political leadership) as being a bagatelle.. in 2002 and then promptly carried on as normal and failed to appoint one again.. Richard Bacon's expenses must be execessive as he was not properly elected.. and it is assumed that the cllrs feel similarly;

d)it is simply fact that the Council acknowledged that its staff had been issuing and modifying enforcement notices without authority and prosecuting the same (about 400 are identifiable.. and they appear to have been issued with a racial bias by the officers concerned.. who have then identified that they are local mortgages).

There is nothing obsessive about this.. there is an obsession in SNDC to withhold the truth to modify it and to make it up.. and this appears to be actively supported by the political leadership.

Doubtless the issues will be raised with the ICO and also with the LGO... who it has been identified the Council's staff have deliberately set out to mislead in documents forwarded.

There is little point in the council having a complaints process - when it refuses to expose the acts of its staff to this procedure. It is unlikely that the Council would survive and this appears to be acknowledged by the Conservative group on the Council who appear to be seeking its abolition and/or unitary status.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS