The information is interesting that has been posted regarding the pseudonyms which Haringey Borough Council has alleged are being used by the requester, Arnold Layne, on the whatdotheyknow website. I believe Haringey have had a succession of High Court/Supreme Court Judgments ruling against it in the past few years and doubt it would be happy if there was another legal challenge to embarrass it further. What I'm getting at is, if a person has submitted FOI requests under a pseudonym, which that person is perfectly entitled to do, the authority is obliged to act in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, as it takes on the role as either a data controller or data processor. Therefore, if it is trying to expose someone who has opted to remain anonymous, then this must be a breach of that legislation. As a word of warning, there may be implications for CAG if it too is attempting to expose someone posting, who is clearly using a pseudonym, either on the forum or else ware if it is considered a data controller or processor as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998.

Those dreadful freedom of information requests have proved to be an inexpensive way of ensuring local authorities' legal services are conversant with the relevant law. As it is they're typically on six figure salaries, how much would it cost to secure legal officers who knew what they were doing?

Assuming the requests for information I've seen are the ones referred to by the pro-bailiff contributors, it is clear that on the whole, the relevant legal officers are aware of the law that would make local authorities' actions unlawful if they were to forward monies to their enforcement contractors which has been paid, and the preference expressed that it should be made against council tax arrears.

What day jobs are you referring to. With the amount of posts that go into endorsing the latest enforcement regulations and the distribution of proceeds, it would not be an unreasonable assumption to make that the day job would include advising the MOJ on the regulations.

Something is not quite right about a thread like this appearing on a consumer help website which by all accounts serves to provide assistance to those being oppressed by grasping local authorities claiming to be entitled to interpret the law any way they choose. I'm surprised the owners of the site have allowed it and wonder why such bodies like the LGO, Debtline and CAB etc. have not felt the responsibility to oppose all the claims of the principle contributors which obviously aim to influence debtor's actions to ensure that enforcement companies profit to the max.