Jump to content

Showing results for tags 'foi'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
    • Non-Retail subforums
    • Retail Subforums
  • Work, Social and Community
    • Work, Social and Community Subforums:
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
    • Debt subforums:
    • PayDay loan and other Short Term Loans subforum:
  • Motoring
    • Motoring subforums
  • Legal Forums
    • Legal Issues subforums


  • News from the National Consumer Service
  • News from the Web


  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start




Found 9 results

  1. A local school academy made a statement in a letter to parents that I do not believe was true. I have asked the school repeatedly to substantiate their claim but they have ignored every request. They claimed in the letter that something they were asking the local council to approve in a planning application was no different to what was already happening in other local places. I disputed this and asked where these other local places were, which is what they are refusing to say. If they were still under LEA control I suppose I could approach the authority to intervene but as they are an Academy they are a law unto themselves. Is there anyway you can suggest that will force them to substantiate their claim? Thank you.
  2. I joined this group about a year ago when a musical instrument I sent via Parcel Force arrived damaged. I knew that I could not get enhanced insurance on the item as it is on their list of prohibitive items for extra insurance coverage. But it is covered by the basic £100. (So I took the chance as I have posted this item to myself over a dozen times in the past with no issues as it was always well wrapped.) However, the response I got this time when things went wrong was terrible to say the least. I do admit I made my claim outside of the 60 days time limit (as I travel abroad alot), but I had hoped there would be some 'good will' for being a regular customer. No such luck! I took it to the top and still got a no. I did ask them for figures relating to claims in the past year under FOI, but as they point out since 2013 they were no longer a government owned business and it no longer relates to them! If anyone has any idea of the success rate (or not!) or claims, better post them here!
  3. SCOOP has links today to two Freedom of Information requests that feature on the very popular website: What do They Know. http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news It would seem that two individuals are making highly vexatious Freedom of Information requests. It is such a shame that this practice is going on as I fear that before long, the government will amend legislation so that a charge will be payable for each FOI request. The first link on SCOOP is this one from an individual by the name of Wayne Pearsall regarding Removal of Implied Right of Access. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/moj_implied_right_of_access_remo He has so far made 242 Freedom of Information requests using the What do They Know site. There may well be many others as well that are made direct to the relevant authority etc. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/wayne_pearsall Typically, when he does not receive the answer that he wishes.....he requests an 'internal review'. Most telling is Mr Pearsall's request dated 20th March to the Home Office entitled: 'Vexatious Correspondence and Complaints Process" https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vexatious_correspondence_and_com_2#comment-58908
  4. Some posters are or have asked in the past about how and if a LO needs certain things for it to be legal/lawful. Please read the attachment to answer some of these important questions, as the FoI shows it can and does answer many of these questions for you. Some questions have been Signatures Stamps and so on this may answer your questions This FoIA request was made in June 2014 (not by me btw) The document was named as council_-tax-liability-order-hearings-plymouth-magistrates-court or here https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F324610%2Fcouncil_-tax-liability-order-hearings-plymouth-magistrates-court.doc&ei=Fr5ZVYusD8v8Uv3bgZgM&usg=AFQjCNEpoIEH9Sp0CS3UqetGpvmrG-ENHw&sig2=WIUzNwsDh4f4n4gz6vQprg
  5. Good morning Firstly I wish to extend my thanks for providing the inspiration and the means to support the victims of unscrupulous behaviour. I would like to seek advice. I live in a borough with a known shortage of residential parking spaces. The Council acknowledge they issue more residential parking permits than spaces available. After a very late and long drive I was unable to park outside my house and so parked my vehicle at the end of my road. My vehicle was not visible from my window and I had no cause to walk past it for a few days. When I returned to my vehicle it was plastered with 3 x PCNs based on the fact that I had parked in a 'Business Permit Holders' only bay, which surprised me, because there are to my knowledge no businesses on this road. Considering there is a shortage of parking spaces I was surprised the Council would reserve spaces for businesses as it seems to perpetuate a known problem. I believed (and still do believe) I had reasonable grounds to appeal and did so. My first appeal was rejected so I appealed again providing much more evidence. My second appeal was rejected. The Council repeatedly ignored my attempts to discuss the matter further by telephone or in writing. I visited the Council offices and requested to speak to somebody, stating I would even be willing to pay the fines in spite of the fact I believed they were unfair, on the grounds that a member of the Council would speak with me so that I could ensure my concerns pertaining to confusing signage, inadequate lighting, etc. were at least acknowledged. I was refused an audience and was forced to wait for a Notice to Owner to appeal further, thus losing my right to pay the reduced fine. The Surrey Parking and Traffice Appeals Service conceded that only 1 of the 3 fines was lawful and ordered me to pay (in full) the first of the 3 PCNs. At the time I was a student and only had £200 in my bank account. The £110 full fee thus represented over 50% of my entire life savings! I have now graduated and am seeking employment. I am receiving Jobseeker's Allowance and my bank balance has not improved! I would like to understand if there are any procedures I can follow to recover £55 from the Council. This is based on the fact that had they only issued me with 1 x PCN, I would have paid the reduced rate. I refused to pay on the grounds I was certain the Surrey Parking and Traffice Appeals Service would cancel all 3 x PCNs because £330 (or even £165 at the reduce rate) was a ridiculous amount to charge somebody with only £200 in their bank account. Additionally I believe I still have more than legitimate grounds for the original appeal. There are a number of issues that were not acknowledged by the Council, including: - The 'Business Permit Holders Only' sign is unlit. I was unable to see it in the dark. It is also taller than the residential signs and thus harder to read in low light conditions. - The 'Business Permit Holders Only' sign refers to an 'outside area' but it is not clear what this area is. - The sign is not adequately differentiated from others in the road. I believe it is there as a 'trap' to make money from people, particularly seeing as there are no businesses down a road with a shortage of residential parking spaces. - The road markings are unclear. - Although I was parked within 10 metres of the 'Business Permit Holders Only' sign (the reason I believe Surrey Parking and Traffice Appeals Service did not cancel the original PCN), I was parked within 5 metres of a 'Residents Parking' sign. Do I have any rights to further pursue this issue? Many thanks for your time.
  6. i made a request under the Freedom Of Information Act on the DWP DATED 22ST DECEMBER After repeated requests for them to comply with my request, i contacted the information commissionaires office. The ICO gave the DWP 10 days to comply with my request which expires this friday. I have now received this from the DWP IN THE FIRST SENTANCE, THE DWP mention correspondence dated 21ST January. That is when i submitted a complaint as to my original requested dated the 22nd december. You requested an internal review of DWP’s handling of FoI request, “Information and details of Universal Jobmatch”, due to delayed response in your correspondence dated 21 st January, 28 th January and 4th February. The review was conducted by an independent official of the Department, of the relevant grade and authority to carry out such requests. The case has been examined afresh, and guidance has been sought from domain experts to ensure all factors were taken fully into account. I acknowledge that in this instance, the Department failed to respond within 20 working days and the DWP apologise for the delay. This is due to a number of factors including the unexpected level of correspondence received by the team. FOI requests are often complex or require input from a number of different areas e.g. policy, commercial, design teams who need to be consulted to ensure that all FOI requests are fully considered before being responded to. All FOI requests are dealt with by individuals in addition to their day to day workloads and in some cases this will lead to delays . Accordingly, I hope to let you have a response by 19 March 2013. If you have any queries about this letter please contact the DWP Central FoI Team quoting the reference number above. Yours sincerely, DWP Central FoI Team This FOI SENT IS POSTED BELOW Dear Department of Work and Pension Please supply information & details on the universal job match program instigated by the DWP in line with this Freedom of Information Act Request 1/ If a job seekers claimant declines access to the job centre advisor to their universal job match account, will they be sanctioned. 2/ is it mandatory or voluntary and part of the job seekers agreement to comply with a request for registration to universal job match by a job centre adviser 3/ Why are claimants not being told that they will be giving a waiver to the DWP to override their Data Protection Rights in signing up for universal job match 4/ The universal job match system uses tracking cookies to monitor claimants behaviour on the universal job match site. Do these tracking cookies allow information to be gathered on other non applicable web sites not related to universal job match. 5/ In signing up for access by DWP personal to the claimants universal job site, is that not in contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act "the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence (please supply exemptions) via a threat of sanctions for non compliance. 6/ Is not signing up for the universal job match program, and allowing a third party access not in contravention of the Data Protection Act 1998, and EU Law, in that a data subject cannot be forced to sign anything in direct contravention of the said act by way of a sanction for failure to comply with an instruction from a government official. 7/ is it not fact that UK legislation has to be compatable with EU legislation in regards to the Human Rights Act and Directives in respect of Data protection 8/ The company chosen to host the universal job match system is a US company called monster world wide. Will the data collated on the monster world wide hosting site (universal job match) remain in the UK, or transmitted outside the European union, and if so, where will that data be stored. 9/ Will the data gathered on the universal job match site be accessed by third parties, including different departments within the UK and foreign governments yours faithfully it seems the DWP just does not want to answer my questions, comments please and the DWP now expects me to wait a further 4 weeks 22nd december request made, 20 working days to comply new date for a possible compliance 19th march Thats a total of 58 WORKING DAYS
  7. ok here we go the service level agreement http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/146196/response/360396/attach/3/SLA%20CenSus%20redacted.pdf the request in full http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/baliff_information#comment-35657 break down total number of complaints to the council about rossindales - 20 upheld complaints - 0 if anyone can help with this "public intrest test" then i would be grateful
  8. A few weeks ago someone on this forum noticed, when logging in to a DWP website, that they were receiving HTTP redirects to an IP address outside the UK. Unfortunately I can't remember who it was or which thread - sorry folks. Anyhow, the worry was that data was being stored on server farms in the US. Obviously this would be a concern since the nation where the data is physically located would have jurisdiction. I thought the concern to be unfounded - I was fairly sure it would violate the DPA - but hey, Freedom of Information requests don't cost anything and take five minutes to send. So I asked the DWP about it. The short version of their response is that no, data is not stored on servers outside the UK.
  9. I lost my job about a year ago (the details are not relevant but see my other threads if you would like to know more) and have been looking for work ever since. I have applied for about a hundred jobs in the last twelve months - that might not sound a lot but I live in the middle of nowhere and there really isn't much on offer. About half the jobs I have applied for have been with the local council and through their website. There have been at least ten of those jobs which I felt suitable and two which I fulfilled every stated requirement in terms of quite specific experience yet I have not had a single interview. I initially felt that I had been discriminated against because of my age but wondered how on earth that could be proven. Then I started to wonder if the council ever recruited people who were not already employed by them. It was only when I mentioned this to people who may know, e.g. my adviser at the Job Centre and others who know the area well (I have only lived here for two years) that I started to hear the same story, that it is very difficult to get a job with the council unless you are already working there or have a relative who works there. Ironically, one of the questions asked on their site when applying for jobs is about whether or not you have relatives working for them. I am minded to submit an FOI request to find out what percentage of positions are awarded to non-employees. The more I think about it the more annoyed I get and it occurred to me that in fact they are all the employees of the council tax payers and there should not be any preference given to current employees. If it wasn't for the requirement for me to apply for a quota of jobs every week, I would not bother but it really feels like I am banging my head agains the wall and the more effort I put into my applications the more it hurts! I spent several days on a recent application trying to get everything perfectly worded and measured. Can anybody advise me either on the FOI aspect or the law in terms of the preference of current employees in recruitment, please?
  • Create New...