Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Protheroe O'Shea on October 10, 2015 at 8:13

This is terrifying and about restricting information. But as long as wealthy folk know what's going on....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on October 10, 2015 at 9:24

There was a bit of discussion about this in HoL back in September. It's not just the introduction of fees that's worrying, it's the wholesale review of the legislation.

http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/freedom-of-information-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on October 10, 2015 at 16:59

I don't mind the fees but they shouldn't put people off making the requests. £5?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on October 11, 2015 at 5:49

They'd have to charge enough for each request to cover the cost of processing the charge. Which then increases the work.

How much better to make information as open as possible. Then answers are as simple as:

"Please see such-and-such pages on our website."  Or: "See the report to Committee X on date Y".

There could also be a temptation for local Councils facing cuts to treat Freedom of Information Requests as simply one more way to make a profit. In other words an F.o.I. tax.  It's clear from the huge profit made from Controlled Parking Zones that Haringey and other councils have routinely brokenly the law which restricts this.

A similar example is shown by Rev Paul Nicolson's objection to Haringey Council claiming excessive Court costs as a way to make a profit. Or as a penalty to deter non or late payments. When they are only able to charge costs actually and reasonably incurred.

On this general point, there many areas where local councils claiming massive savings and efficiencies from new Information Technology and going "digital by default" should be able to pass these on to residents - or "customers" as we've now become. Anyone know of examples where an "administration charge" for a service has been cut by Haringey?

The Independent's article doesn't seem like a new development.  And "could have to pay £100"  seems at present to be a journalist's speculation. In any case, as Michael points out, there's already a discussion thread on this topic. So I think it's unhelpful, Clive, that you've started a new thread.

One way Haringey seems to inhibit people finding things out is by giving different bits of information to different people. They did this recently with my and someone else's questions on the money poured down the drain on the @50 celebrations and the new logo. We should avoid their bad example.

• ▶ Reply