Dear Mr Burke
I confirm that your request for information has been received and is receiving attention.
The Council aims to provide available information promptly and in any event within 20 working days, unless, exceptionally, there is a need to consider whether the information is exempt from disclosure. Please note that there may be a charge for providing copies of the information. If the cost of complying with your request in full exceeds £450, we will ask you to reconsider your request, or to pay a fee before the information is supplied. If we need to ask you to refine your request or to pay a charge or fee we will let you know.

Mark Anderson
Manager's Assistant
Telephone: 0191 561 2464
E-Mail: [email address]

Customer Number: 1431
Request Number: 2174

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Burke,

Thank you for your enquiry about the Difference Engine. Below are the
answers to your questions:

Q., According to the business case your contribution of £100k to this
programme was confirmed in September 2009. Please confirm that your
£100k capital contribution has been transferred to the North East
Business & Innovation Centre together with the date that this transfer
took place.

A., The monies have not yet been transferred to the North East Business
& Innovation Centre.

Q., If your £100k capital contribution has not been transferred please
can you confirm the date when you will transfer this contribution.

A., No date has been set for the transfer of monies.

Q., If your £100k capital contribution has not been made to this
programme please can you clarify the reasons for this

A., Sunderland City Council monies will not be used to invest in Cycle 1
of the programme.

Q., According to the business case all project partners in each of the
programme cycles will receive an equity stake in the selected
businesses. Please confirm your equity stake in every business that has
been selected for cycle 1 of this programme and please provide details
of the equity stake, the business name and the company registration
number for each business.

A., Sunderland City Council will not receive any equity stake in
selected businesses from Cycle 1.

Q., If no equity stake been secured against businesses in cycle 1 of
this programme please can you clarify and provide reasons why not?

A., Sunderland City Council will not receive any equity stake in
selected businesses. Equity stakes relating to Cycle 1 businesses are to
be taken and held by the North East Business & Innovation Centre.

Q., Please confirm that you will be contributing to cycle 2 of this
programme and that you will be making a capital contribution in return
for an equity stake in businesses of that cycle.

A., Sunderland City Council will be contributing to Cycle 2 of the
programme. Any equity stakes secured in Cycle 2 will be held by the
North East Business & Innovation Centre.

Q., Please confirm that you have received an SLA agreement (as required
by the business case prior to programme launch) regarding management of
the portfolio and please provide a copy of this document.

A., A agreement has been prepared, but is yet to be formally endorsed by
partners. As it has yet to be formally endorsed, no requests to provide
a copy of the agreement can be considered. It is anticipated that this
process may be concluded within one month, should you wish to submit a
further request.

I hope this is satisfactory. If, however, you remain dissatisfied with our
response to your request for information, you may request a further
review. This will be removed from the Directorate and coordinated by the
Council’s Information Manager. A request for further review should be
addressed to the Information Manager, PO Box 100, Civic Centre,
Sunderland, SR2 7DN.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Donkin
Business Investment Team
Sunderland City Council
0191 - 561 1210

Dear Mr Burke,

Thank you for your enquiry. I have been able to source a hard copy of the
SLA, which I will forward to you if you will provide a contact address.
With regard to the second part of your enquiry, I can confirm that the
capital contribution has not yet been transferred. I will advise you when
there is any change in this situation.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,
Kevin

Kevin Donkin
Business Investment Team
Sunderland City Council
0191 - 561 1210

show quoted sections

Sunderland is aiming to become the most liveable city in the UK.
Visit www.Sunderland.gov.uk for Council services and information.
Business investors can access www.Investinsunderland.co.uk
Visitors to the City should log onto www.Visitsunderland.com

Dear Mr Burke,

I can confirm that the SLA uploaded on the website is the same as that
which I have in my possession.

Regards,
Kevin

Kevin Donkin
Business Investment Team
Sunderland City Council
0191 - 561 1210

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Burke,

Further to your enquiry, my understanding is that no capital contributions
have as yet been transferred.

Yours sincerely,
Kevin Donkin

Kevin Donkin
Business Investment Team
Sunderland City Council
0191 - 561 1210

show quoted sections

Sunderland is aiming to become the most liveable city in the UK.
Visit www.Sunderland.gov.uk for Council services and information.
Business investors can access www.Investinsunderland.co.uk
Visitors to the City should log onto www.Visitsunderland.com

Dear Mr Burke,

I am not able to confirm at this stage.

Yours sincerely,
Kevin Donkin
Business Investment Team
Sunderland City Council
0191 - 561 1210

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Burke,

I refer to your requests for information in relation to Rainton Bridge
Business Park and The Difference Engine.

The council is aware that One North East has made a decision not to
provide any further information under section 14(1) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and have noted the requests you have submitted are
related in substance. As a result the total volume of requests that you
have submitted have been considered and as a consequence section 14(1)
applies which states that "Section 1(1) does not oblige a public
authority to comply with a request for information if the request is
vexatious".

The reasoning for this decision echoes the findings of One NorthEast in
that the submission of 149 Freedom of Information requests can be viewed
as unreasonable and the requests that have now been submitted to
Sunderland City Council are following the same pattern. In the
Information Commissioners Decision notice Case Ref: FS50099755 it was
considered entirely appropriate to consider the aggregated effect of
dealing with all requests known to have been made across the public
sector. It is therefore viewed that each successive request represents a
continuation of behaviour following on from the requests made to One
NorthEast.

I hope this is satisfactory. If, however, you remain dissatisfied with
our response to your request for information, you may request a further
review. This will be removed from the Directorate and coordinated by the
Council's Information Manager. A request for further review should be
addressed to the Information Manager, PO Box 100, Civic Centre,
Sunderland, SR2 7DN.

If this fails to resolve your concerns then you have the right to apply
to the Information Commissioner for a decision.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Donkin
Business Investment Team
Sunderland City Council
0191 - 561 1210

show quoted sections

Sunderland is aiming to become the most liveable city in the UK.
Visit www.Sunderland.gov.uk for Council services and information.
Business investors can access www.Investinsunderland.co.uk
Visitors to the City should log onto www.Visitsunderland.com

Dear Mr Burke

1. I write in connection with your requests for review of the Council's handling of your Freedom of Information (FOI) requests entitled The Difference Engine (found at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th...) and Rainton Bridge Business Park (found at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ra...). Your review requests have been passed to me for attention and will be considered together due to the commonality of the reasons cited in refusal.

2. The refusal notice issued to you on 23 December 2010 regarding your enquiries as above cited vexatiousness as the reason for refusal - Section 14(1) of the FOI Act referring. I will address your points of appeal individually:-

Points of Appeal: The Difference Engine

3. Your e-mail of 23 December cites two points of appeal: if I may address each in turn -

4. "I do not believe that the FOI requests that you have referred to in
connection with One North East have any relevance here. Can you
direct me to the relevant section in the Act where you feel this is
appropriate."

5. I have reviewed Mr Donkin's refusal notice of 23 December and note that it contains reference to Information Commissioner (ICO) Decision Notice FS 50099755, which deals with the consideration of multiple FOI requests made to multiple Public Authorities (PAs).

6. It may be helpful at this point to clarify an FOI point you may not have appreciated. The right to request information under FOI extends to information that is held by a PA at the time a given request is received (Section 1(4), FOI Act refers). Where a PA issues a reply to a request that provides the requested information, refuses it or advises that it is not held by the PA, that request is - under the terms of the legislation - closed.

7. In this light, while a casual observer may conclude you have only issued three FOI requests to the Council via the whatdotheyknow.com site, under the terms of the legislation, you have actually submitted seven requests for information, as detailed at Appendix 1. While this is relevant to the Council in terms of the public resources fulfilment of those requests requires, it is of particular relevance when considering whether or not it is proper to bear your other FOI activities in mind when evaluating the application of Section 14(1). In this regard I have reviewed all FOI requests submitted by you through whatdotheyknow.com and have found a similar pattern, in which many of your requests are, legally, closed but are kept open on the website by your subsequent requests for 'clarification' or fresh information. As at 5 January 2011, whatdotheyknow displayed 14 FOI Requests from you, but examination of those 14 'headline' requests confirmed that they comprised of a total of 184 requests for information. I hope this clarifies the position in relation to your annotation of 24 December 2010 regarding the (then-cited) "149 requests".

8. While the FOI Act does not contain any limits on the number of requests an individual may submit, large numbers of queries from the same requestor may have something to say about a PA's obligations to respond. Section 12, FOI Act allows for the cost / resource impact of a person's requests to be taken into account in determining whether there is an obligation to respond to a request, with Section 12(4) in particular allowing for the aggregation of multiple requests to get a picture of the overall burden that a particular requestor's enquiries involves.

9. The circumstances in which Section 12 considerations can lead directly to a refusal are limited, but consideration of an individual's 'request behaviour' can be similarly relevant to other, linked considerations - in this case, whether or not a request can fairly be considered vexatious.

10. In section 5 of ICO Decision Notice FS50099755, the ICO notes that "...the Cabinet Office (as the public authority dealing with the request) and he (as the person required to consider the complaint) are entitled to take into account their knowledge as to the total volume of requests made by the same individual". Accordingly, and bearing in mind the similarities between the 'follow-on' nature many of the requests submitted to other PA's and those submitted to the Council my view is that the principle discussed in the decision notice is relevant and applicable to your case. Accordingly, I consider evidence of your wider requests to other PA's is relevant in consideration to your requests to the Council, and that you were directed to the relevant section of the Act - Section 14(1) - in Mr Donkin's refusal notice of 23 December. Your first Point of Appeal is, therefore, not upheld.

11. "Your responses above, whilst helpful, are currently incomplete -
this clarification that I am seeking is aiming for closure which I
hope that you will provide without internal review/appeal."

12. Your second Point of Appeal suggests a misunderstanding of the legislation which I hope I have clarified at paragraphs 6 & 7 above.

Points of Appeal: Rainton Bridge Business Park

13. Your e-mail of 23 December includes two specific enquiries: if I may address each in turn -

14. "In relation to Information Commissioners Decision notice Case Ref:
FS50099755 that you quote I note "that in line with Awareness
Guidance No 22, The Commissioner's general approach
has been to consider whether the Cabinet Office has demonstrated
that the
requests;

- would impose a significant burden on the public authorities taken
together;
- have the effect of harassing them; or
- could otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive or
manifestly unreasonable."

I would be grateful for an internal review to be carried out and as
part of that review I would be grateful if you could clarify which
of the above criteria you consider to be relevant to your refusal
notice."

15. It is important to acknowledge that the reference cited here, and application of the principles therein to your own case both rely on seeing an individual's FOI requests and correspondence in the round. In this regard, it was felt that your Rainton Bridge Business Park request is typical of the line of questioning that seems to me to cover thematically similar subject matter to those of all bar one your other FOI requests to date, namely the management and funding of local business and investment initiatives. Your earlier FOI requests to the Council (The Difference Engine and The Difference Engine Travel, Subsistence and Marketing), taken together with your wider FOI activities, very strongly suggested that response to this particular request would be met with the same requests for "clarifications" as in the great majority of your other whatdotheyknow.com requests. Taken - as it undoubtedly is - as one request for information amongst the 180+ you have submitted via whatdotheyknow.com to date, your Rainton Bridge Business Park can only add to the administrative burden that requests to date have involved.

16. Whether this constitutes a 'significant burden' is a matter of comparing the facts of the case to the applicable rules and regulations: in legislative terms, we are helped towards a definition of 'significant burden' by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Fees and Limits) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004 No 3244) - aka the Fees Regulations, as referenced by Section 12, FOI Act - the right to refuse requests that would incur resources in excess of statutory limits. Here, the regulations allow for the refusal of requests requiring in excess of £450 (£600 for central government departments) of officer time to fulfil: in practice, this equates to 18 working hours (24 for central government departments) at the statutory rate of £25 per hour.

17. The Fees Regulations also allow for PA's to add together requests when calculating the resourcing needs as above, in cases where those requests relate, to any extent, to the same or similar information. In the cases of your requests to date, almost all are thematically similar in that they relate to details of funding and management around certain local business and investment initiatives.

18. Although a direct refusal under Fees Limits would only be triggered by the receipt of 'fees-busting' requests within a 60 working day period, the principles of fees limits and the aggregation of public resource requirements does provide a reasonable 'barometer' for considering 'significant burden' in the context of vexatiousness.

19. In simple mathematical terms, to respond to all of your questions across public authorities to date within the resources that the Fees Regulations suggest are acceptable would require every one of the 180+ questions you have asked to date to be answerable in between six and eight minutes apiece. Given that answering a question is only the last stage in the process of determining whether the relevant information is held and - if so - locating it and extracting it into a releasable format, it is very likely that the notional 'significant burden' figures have already been exceeded by your series of requests. In this regard, I find that continuance of your line of questioning can reasonably be said to constitute a significant burden overall.

20. In the course of reviewing your case I have not found any evidence of any intent to harass the Council or other public authorities, but am mindful that this cannot guarantee that your requests will not have 'harassing effects'. The term harass can cover a broad spectrum of cause and effect and can include subjecting, or being subjected to constant interference: while I do not suggest any intention on your part to harass or interfere with the workings of PAs, if your questions have had the effect of diverting organisations or their officers from their core business, one cannot escape the fact that one of the effects of these questions has been to interfere. In this regard, and while I cannot speak for other PA's, I can confirm that the team responsible for the information you seek within Sunderland Council is a small one and as such can be disproportionately affected by a chain of requests.

21. In the cases of your requests under The Difference Engine, Difference Engine Travel, Subsistence & Marketing and Rainton Bridge Business Park, providing responses to your questions has, to a degree, diverted the corresponding officer from his core public duties. It must be acknowledged, however, that the requests directed at the Council are only a part of the 180-plus requests for information you have directed to a number of public authorities in the region. There will, therefore, be a wider effect on publicly-funded business and services due directly to the wider scope of your overall FOI enquiries.

22. The degree to which this could fairly be seen as 'harassing' the Council is, I would suggest, inversely proportional to the public interest in the subject matter of your questions. That is, where it can be shown that a request requires diversion of Council resources that will benefit the Public by promoting greater awareness or informing public debate on a matter of broad significance or contention, any harassing effects will be proportionally less significant in the round as those that might be incurred in answering a request of lesser public value. The same consideration applies to your wider requests.

23. Characterising requests as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable can be difficult - possibly inappropriate - in cases involving an isolated request or question. However, where individuals submit large numbers of enquiries, obsessive or unreasonable behaviour - if present - is more likely to identify itself. Because of their nature, obsessive or unreasonable actions or behaviours can only reasonably be characterised against a wider understanding of a person's circumstances or motives. In this respect deciding on the qualification, or otherwise, of a given request as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable will of necessity require consideration of a rather wider picture than the single request in question. Accordingly, consideration of your wider FOI activities becomes relevant, as discussed in principle in decision notice FS50099755 as cited.

24. Public authorities are at liberty to disclose information if it is the case that an outwardly obsessive or unreasonable case involves information that would be of genuine public interest. In this sense, the determination to make requires a similar balancing exercise in the considerative process to the issue of harassment - weighing the effect of a request as part of an overall picture of a pattern of requests (and the effects on publicly-funded public authorities of answering it) against potential benefit to the public of actioning the disclosure.

25. In this case, the weighing exercise has not been an easy one owing to the number of requests you have submitted overall and the cross-referencing of queries, responses, notes and annotations that these have involved. At first blush, the subject matter of your requests would appear to be of interest to the public, as they appear to concern themselves with matters of public funding and finance. However, closer examination of the breadth and specificity of many of your requests and 'clarifications' make the identification of any immediately apparent public interest 'direction' or 'message' rather more difficult. Put simply, while your line of enquiry is clearly of interest to you, no benefit to the wider public interest has yet been shown.

26. Although not stated directly in the wording of the legislation the FOI Act has, through codes of practice and official guidance, become 'purpose blind' to all intents and purposes. The effect of this is that a public authority cannot (with a very few exceptions relating to such issues as health & safety, national security etc) allow a person's intended use of official information to determine whether or not they receive it. When evaluating the likelihood of public benefit against the cost to the public purse - as is the case in this review - an intended (or even reasonably possible) use of requested information can be of marked significance in determining whether a request should be ruled vexatious or be recognised as in the public interest: that is - while it might not be possible for a public authority to discern a value to the public in the release of particular information, this does not necessarily mean that no such value exists. I find that this is the situation that arises in relation to this case.

27. In the course of reviewing your requests for information I have, as previously stated, looked at your requests to Sunderland City Council in the context of their being part of a wider 'picture' of thematically similar enquiries. Although a great deal of detail has been requested, and quite some significant detail released in response, in the course of your requests to date it is not clear what value the disclosures in question would have to a wider readership. The depth and detail in your requests suggests a degree of familiarity on your part with the subject matter at hand but the value of the same information to a wider readership is not apparent. As an example, while it is clear that you are interested in the transfer of the Council's capital contribution to the North East Business & Innovation Centre it is very difficult to see what tangible benefit this information can offer the wider public.

28. Accordingly, at this point, the balance between the value of requested information to a wider public and the value of public servants being able to deliver public services lies significantly in the latter direction. In the terms explored above therefore, the adverse (or 'harassing') effects on public authorities - of which the Council is one - of answering your questions are not outweighed by a clearly made argument to support responding. Further, by any measure 180+ thematically similar requests for information would be likely to strike some observers as perhaps obsessive in nature: as discussed above, at present the value of your most recent requests beyond your own interest in a fairly specialised area has not been made clear and as such the theoretical observer's impression of obsession in the course of enquiry is therefore the only case currently being made.

29. I trust this answers your query as reproduced at paragraph 14 above.

30. "I would also like the internal review to confirm that One North
East, which you cite in your refusal notice, and/or anybody
connected with One North East and/or the companies at Rainton
Business Park to which this FOI request relates, have not
influenced your refusal notice."

31. It appears to me that there are two ways in which this request can be interpreted. If you are asking whether the Council has sought the views of other organisations on how to respond to your requests for information, the answer is no. If, however, you are asking whether knowledge of the many requests you have submitted to a range of other organisations (via whatdotheyknow, a public forum) and the resulting overall burden of those requests on the broader Public Purse has been taken into account in gauging whether there is justification for aggregating the effect of dealing with all of your requests across the public authorities you have approached then the answer is yes, as set out in paragraphs 27 and 28 above.

32. Having carefully considered your requests to the Council, and in conjunction with the principles explored in Decision Notice FS50099755, I am satisfied that this is a reasonable and lawful position to take.

Conclusion

33. Following consideration of your case by reference to a review of the history of your requests to Sunderland City Council and beyond, I am unable to uphold your points of appeal. That is -

- I am satisfied that my colleague's view of your requests to the Council as being a part of a wider pattern of activity was reasonable, relevant and lawful.

- I am satisfied that your initial enquiry titled The Difference Engine was, in FOI terms, answered and closed by my colleague's correspondence of 21 April. The Council's response should have been issued by 20 April to remain within the 20 working day deadline, and for this late response I apologise. In the same FOI terms, however, your subsequent requests for 'clarification' were in fact new FOI requests.

- I am satisfied that your request for information on Rainton Bridge Business Park and continued requests for dates of capital transfer are vexatious in that they appear to lack any wider purpose or value, impose a burden on the Council (and, further afield, the wider Public Purse) that has not yet been justified and will have the effect of diverting publicly-funded resources from their core business purposes, thus interfering with those business purposes.

34. If you are unhappy with this response, you are, of course, entitled to
ask the Information Commissioner for his view on the matter. Should
you wish to pursue such a course of action, please contact the
Information Commissioner's Office directly. The Commissioner can be contacted at - [email address]

Yours sincerely,

O Thomas
Data Protection Officer
Law & Governance
Sunderland City Council
[Sunderland City Council request email]

Appendix 1

Timeline - James Burke FOI Requests to Sunderland City Council

I. The Difference Engine

22/03/2010 - Request A received via e-mail
22/03/2010 - Acknowledgement issued
21/04/2010 - Response issued

06/07/2010 - Request B received via e-mail
11/08/2010 - Reminder received via e-mail
25/08/2010 - Reminder received via e-mail
31/08/2010 - Reply issued - clarification of disclosure arrangements requested
31/08/2010 - Requestor response re: document to be disclosed
01/09/2010 - document status confirmed - already accessed by requestor from another source

07/10/2010 - Request C received via e-mail
06/11/2010 - Reminder received via e-mail
08/11/2010 - Reply issued

09/11/2010 - Request D received via e-mail
09/11/2010 - Reply issued

22/12/2010 - 'Reminder' received via e-mail
23/12/2010 - Reply (refusal) issued.

II. Difference Engine Travel, Subsistence & Marketing

06/11/2010 - Request A received via e-mail
11/11/2010 - Reply issued

11/11/2010 - Request B received via e-mail
06/12/2010 - Reply issued

III. Rainton Bridge Business Park

23/11/2010 - Request A received via e-mail
23/12/2010 - Reminder received via e-mail
23/12/2010 - Reply (refusal) issued.

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information Request

Your request for information concerning: The Difference Engine project

I confirm that your request for information has been received and is receiving attention.

The Council aims to provide available information promptly and in any event within 20 working days, unless, exceptionally, there is a need to consider whether the information is exempt from disclosure. Please note that there may be a charge for providing copies of the information. If the cost of complying with your request in full exceeds £450, we will ask you to reconsider your request, or to pay a fee before the information is supplied. If a charge or fee is payable we will let you know.

I will contact you again soon in connection with your request.

Please quote the reference below if you contact the Council regarding this request.

[email address]

Customer Request Number: 111213

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Burke
 

I refer to your recent request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  I can confirm that the Council does hold this
information, as detailed below:

"I would be grateful if you could confirm why there are no
Capital contributions to The North East Business & Innovation
Centre recorded in the Local Transparency Payments table and also
confirm the total amount (Capital and/or Revenue) contributed to
The Difference Engine project managed by The North East Business &  
Innovation Centre."

The one and only payment to the North East Business & Innovation Centre
(BIC) in connection with 'The Difference Engine' is the £100,000 recorded
as transaction number 5121335537. The other payments to the BIC relate to
a now defunct national government scheme called 'Working Neighbourhoods
Fund', where the City Council was effectively the conduit for government
money that the BIC used to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds /
deprived communities set up micro-businesses as an alternative to being on
benefits.
 

I hope this is satisfactory. If, however, you are dissatisfied with our
response to your request for information, you can ask for the decision to
be reviewed in reply to this letter. The review will be removed from the
Directorate and coordinated by the Council s Information Governance
Officer.  A request for review should be directed, by email to
[1][Sunderland City Council request email], or by post or by hand addressed
to; Information Governance Officer, Governance Services, Civic Centre, PO
Box 100, Sunderland SR2 7DN.

You are of course entitled to apply to the Information Commissioner at any
time, although the Commissioner will not usually investigate until the
public authority s internal review procedure has been concluded.

Kind regards 

Julia White

 
Julia White
Business Development Officer
Office of the Chief Executive
Sunderland City Council
Room 3.92 - Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
Tel: 0191 5611573 
Email: [2][email address] 
 

show quoted sections

Sunderland is aiming to become the most liveable city in the UK.
Visit www.Sunderland.gov.uk for Council services and information.
Business investors can access www.Investinsunderland.co.uk
Visitors to the City should log onto www.Visitsunderland.com

References

Visible links
1. blocked::mailto:[Sunderland City Council request email]
mailto:[Sunderland City Council request email]
mailto:[Sunderland City Council request email]
2. mailto:[email address]

Dear Mr Burke

I am in the process of seeking clarification following your recent email and will contact you as soon as I have this information.

Kind regards

Julia White
Business Development Officer
Office of the Chief Executive
Sunderland City Council
Room 3.92 - Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
Tel: 0191 5611573
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Burke

Following your recent Freedom of Information request and subsequent question on Monday 9 January 2012:
"I would be grateful if you could clarify if the payment was capital or revenue as currently the information originally provided appears to state the amount as "capital" and then subsequently in the Local Transparency Payments as "revenue"."

Our response is as follows:
For the purpose of this project, we can confirm that the payment was in fact "revenue".

Kind regards

Julia

Julia White
Business Development Officer
Office of the Chief Executive
Sunderland City Council
Room 3.92 - Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
Tel: 0191 5611573
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections