Local land charges

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

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please identify how many enforcement notices the Council has issued without authority since 2000, and the references for each notice.

Please further identify how many enforcement notices have been modified by staff of the Council without the Council's authority since 2000, and the reference for each notice.

Please identify how many certificatse of lawfulness issued by the Council have been modified by the Councilstaff without authority since 2000, and the reference for each notice.

Finally, please provide copies of all documentation from members of staff identifying that local land charges should be modified without authority, and or requests from solicitors that the Council acts in this way (with associated receipts.. and/or envelopes).

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Right2Know,

Dear Mr Carruthers

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 30 November 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 09-267.

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,

and before you say none.. the SNDC has acknowledged that its staff have been issuing and modifying enforcement notices without authority.. and even had to change their constitution (the Monitoring Officer failed to identify the reason for the change)

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

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 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: [1]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: [2]www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Right2Know,

Joanna Kitchener made a decision that requests about Local land Charges were vexatious on 25 March 2009. This was not following procedures - as a review panel should have been convened

The Council has subsequently acknowledged that its staff have been making entries in the registers of local land charges without authority (i.e. RTPI memebers..) these have been authorised by the Council Solicitor (SRA regulated). Both the RTPI members and SRA members of staff of the Council are also regulated by the Head Of paid service.

The Council's Monitoring Officer has sought to change the Council's constitution. There is just no doubt that the s151 Officer is aware.. (they have also been identified as authorising bills by the Council) based on false charges.. The issues are very simple the s151 to make a valid corporate governance statement is required to highlight the costs of the false local land charges in the Council's risk register (the member of the CIPFA Council employed by SNDC will identify that this is the case).

The only issue which the SNDC has identified as being vexatious is its historic failure to administer elections properly.. However.. as doubtless the current leader of the Council is anticipating a call to Swaffham to validate electoral arrangements in the 'abolished' SNDC district.. lets just say that the SW Conswrvative Association have other things on their minds.

Please supply the information

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Right2Know,

Dear Mr Carruthers

Further to your email below, as previously stated, following the
guidance on vexatious requests provided by the Information Commissioner,
there is no requirement to issue a further refusal notice and as many of
your requests have been declared vexatious, I intend to continue to
follow the procedure as laid out in my email below, that is to await the
outcome of the appealed vexatious request (FOI 08-103) to the ICO.

I will not therefore be convening an internal review on this request.

As you know, I am answering all the FOI requests from you that I deem to
be reasonable and I have not imposed a blanket policy on your requests;
I am only declaring those requests vexatious which could be seen as
being designed to cause disruption or annoyance, lack any serious
purpose or value or where the request can fairly be seen as obsessive.

Please refer to the ICO if you wish to take this matter further. Please
note I will not respond to any further correspondence from you on this
particular request.

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,

FOI08/0103 relates to electoral registration not local land charges..

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/el...

It is my understanding that the ICO came to a local settlement.. and that the SNDC have rather a lot of issues (flawed issue of FOI exemptions to deal with).

It is simply fact that the SNDC has been holding flawed elections. The monitoring officer (Timothy Mobbs and Solicitor to the Council Stuart Shortman were forced to admit this in 2002).. as is the fact that they failed to do anything about it... under the control of the Head of Paid Service.

Doubtless neither the Monitoring officer, Solicitor to the Council, s151 or Head of paid Service having subverted the electoral process over a number of years are still employed by the Council. It would be very unwise don't you think to have them involved in a complaints process.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS