The Greediest Town Council in the World?

mathie

I am selling my house and hte purchasers solicitors requires that we find out who owns the lane behind the property.

No problem.

I contact the town council and it turns out they do in fact own it.

I ask them to send a letter to my solicitor to confirm this.

They say 'Yeah no problem. 70euro please'.

Seriously whats up with this country?

M

godtabh

mathie wrote:

I am selling my house and hte purchasers solicitors requires that we find out who owns the lane behind the property.

No problem.

I contact the town council and it turns out they do in fact own it.

I ask them to send a letter to my solicitor to confirm this.

They say 'Yeah no problem. 70euro please'.

Seriously whats up with this country?

M

Go to the land regiestry. Its €2.50 or something like that.

I have to get a letter form a county council about a round and whether its public or private. Its gona cost me €125

antoinolachtnai

Why do you think the taxpayers should have to pay because you are selling your house?

K_P

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Why do you think the taxpayers should have to pay because you are selling your house?

Fair point if the OP was complaining about a small fee, but €70??!! :eek: That's an insane figure!

antoinolachtnai

How much are you paying your solicitor to confirm the title of your property? EUR 70 is about 30 minutes in a solicitor's office. At least they're not charging you VAT!

godtabh

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Why do you think the taxpayers should have to pay because you are selling your house?

I'm not selling a house.

I'm doing work that will benefit the locals and the county council.

Borzoi

mathie wrote:

I am selling my house and hte purchasers solicitors requires that we find out who owns the lane behind the property.

Surely that's his problem. You're not selling the lane, just the house. Why should the ownership of any adjacent land be anything to do with you?

mathie

Borzoi wrote:

Surely that's his problem. You're not selling the lane, just the house. Why should the ownership of any adjacent land be anything to do with you?

That's a good question.
Anyone else have any input on this?
I'm loathe to pay 70 euro for a letter when it was confirmed in an e-mail for free.

seamus

Borzoi wrote:

Surely that's his problem. You're not selling the lane, just the house. Why should the ownership of any adjacent land be anything to do with you?

The purchaser probably requires it so that they can know what is and isn't going on. If one of the neighbours owned it, they could theoretically bring up issues re: access, or could be a pain in the ass if a developer suddenly decided that they wanted the laneway as part of an apartment block lands.

Borzoi

seamus wrote:

The purchaser probably requires it so that they can know what is and isn't going on. If one of the neighbours owned it, they could theoretically bring up issues re: access, or could be a pain in the ass if a developer suddenly decided that they wanted the laneway as part of an apartment block lands.

I absolutely see your point here Seamus, but again why is that an issue for the vendor? If the potential purchaser wants to find out the ownership of all the adjacent land - or any other land for that matter, it's up to them, at their own expense.

The_Conductor

Get the name of the executive officer in the planning section and pop him/her a brief e-mail. It'll take them all of 5 minutes to send an e-mail back to you confirming what has been said on the phone. Tactfully decline to mention the issue of the E70 charge. There normally is a charge, but more often than not its a lower charge. Its to stop the likes of journalists going on fishing expeditions (this is also why the FOI charges were increased recently in government departments). The reason the charge is there, and the reason that its set at the level its at, is to discourage spurious information requests.

S.

astrofool

Surely all this data should be free to view by anyone though?

How hard is it for the government to setup a web accessible database?

The_Conductor

astrofool wrote:

Surely all this data should be free to view by anyone though?

How hard is it for the government to setup a web accessible database?

In theory the data should be available free to view by anyone.
In practice- most offices have had to dedicate staff to photocopying and researching information (even small sections in offices can have several million pages of paper files). There are many IT projects underway to scan wholesale quantities of documents and make them available internally via a sort of electronic jukebox system- along the lines of the system the army implemented about 3 years ago. The whole system of providing information to the public really fell apart when journalists started to abuse it- seeking thousands of documents on whims, on particular topics/subjects/areas purely on fishing expeditions for stories that may not exist. Suddenly entire sections ended up doing research for the weekend newspapers, instead of their proper work, and the whole thing ground to a halt. It was decided that the only way to put a stop to this was 1) Impose a charge per query and 2) Once a certain number of man hours is exceeded- that whoever places the query is informed that records do exist, x amount of time has been spent so far on your query, if you wish us to proceed with the query it will incur a cost of Y (payable upfront- as a lot of people ignored later bills) etc.......

Ideally everyone should have access to what are public records. Unfortunately selfish behaviour, particularly on the part of journalists, has ruined it for ordinary members of the public.

antoinolachtnai

smccarrick wrote:

The whole system of providing information to the public really fell apart when journalists started to abuse it- seeking thousands of documents on whims, on particular topics/subjects/areas purely on fishing expeditions for stories that may not exist. Suddenly entire sections ended up doing research for the weekend newspapers, instead of their proper work, and the whole thing ground to a halt.

I hope you can back up the account above with concrete examples.

I take it you are referring to FOI legislation. FOI has very little to do with records relating to the title of land. Incidentally, the OP did not seek access to records, they sought a statement on the ownership of land, which is a different thing.

and 2) Once a certain number of man hours is exceeded- that whoever places the query is informed that records do exist, x amount of time has been spent so far on your query, if you wish us to proceed with the query it will incur a cost of Y (payable upfront- as a lot of people ignored later bills) etc.......

When was this change decided exactly and how was it enacted?

astrofool

What do you mean "entire sections ended up doing research for the weekend newspapers" ?

I presume this is beside the fact that the documents are still being stored electronically anyway. Should the documents already scanned not be made freely available?

The_Conductor

astrofool wrote:

What do you mean "entire sections ended up doing research for the weekend newspapers" ?

I presume this is beside the fact that the documents are still being stored electronically anyway. Should the documents already scanned not be made freely available?

A lot of the documents might contain circumspect information (e.g. land titles that may not be uptodate, inaccurate mapping, schemes that have been superceded or references to people which may not already be in the public domain. In practice this means examining each document individually and where a decision is made to partially release information- photocopying it and blacking out any personal information on the photocopy, before photocopying it again and releasing the photocopy of the photocopy.......

Historically its only a very recent development in most councils/government departments for documents to be stored electronically- even now the vast bulk of files are hard-copy only. Its not unusual for even small sections to have vast corridors lined with Arc-File 6" high swinging cabinets, bulging at the seams. Occassionally a spring clean may occur- where files may be shipped off to one of the two main archives (Tullamore and Sandyford), but from practice its nigh impossible to ever find and retrieve files from there again- so a lot of sections don't bother.

The army here have led the way in the electronic archiving of records, with a jukebox system- its taken a few years to scan their records, but they are available electronically for the first time. Their efforts were implemented not to make records available to the public- but because their paper records were degrading with a lot of insect and moisture damage. The department of Finance are looking at their system with the notion of rolling it out across the government departments- for broadly similar reasons.

The digitisation of records is not intended as a tool to make it easier for the public to hop online and look up information- more to initially secure information from degradation and secondly to make it easier for staff to actually handle the information.

Antoin- regarding concrete examples- I do work in a government department and have been involved in numerous FOI and other information requests (that did not occur under the remit of FOI). I am not in a position to provide concrete examples, but if you talk to employees of county councils or civil servants involved in this area of work- they will verify what I have said.
Fees for Freedom of Information Requests were introduced under the Freedom of Information Ammendment Act (2003), enacted on the 7th July 2003- primarily because the original intention of the FOI act was that people would know specific records or information was being requested. A lot of people didn't know what they were looking for- including journalists, who used the act to go on elaborate fishing expeditions.

FOI charges only apply to FOI requests- anyone is perfectly within their rights to request the exact same information exclusive to the FOI acts, which would mean they wouldn't be charged, but it would also mean that they would not get a guaranteed response within a certain timeframe as guaranteed under the FOI act. If the person making the information request is a medical card holder there is provision for a reduced schedule of fees.

I am aware that the original request from the OP did not come under the remit of the FOI act- the county councils have modelled their record retrieval systems on the same basis however. A file retrieval of a non-personal nature, by a non-medical card holder incurs an automatic original charge of 15 Euro, and a further charge of 75 Euro if reviewed internally.
A schedule of FOI charges can be found here.

antoinolachtnai

Antoin- regarding concrete examples- I do work in a government department and have been involved in numerous FOI and other information requests (that did not occur under the remit of FOI). I am not in a position to provide concrete examples, but if you talk to employees of county councils or civil servants involved in this area of work- they will verify what I have said.

This is always the story. The trail always goes cold on this when you ask that question. Anyway, the new charges imposed were structured so as to vastly reduce appeals as much as they were to reduce actual requests. A ten year old could see what the motivations behind the change were.

Fees for Freedom of Information Requests were introduced under the Freedom of Information Ammendment Act (2003), enacted on the 7th July 2003- primarily because the original intention of the FOI act was that people would know specific records or information was being requested. A lot of people didn't know what they were looking for- including journalists, who used the act to go on elaborate fishing expeditions.

This is untrue. Fees for significant FOI searches were provided for in the 1997 legislation.

FOI charges only apply to FOI requests- anyone is perfectly within their rights to request the exact same information exclusive to the FOI acts, which would mean they wouldn't be charged, but it would also mean that they would not get a guaranteed response within a certain timeframe as guaranteed under the FOI act.

Yes, it would mean they would not get a guaranteed response, it would mean they wouldn't get the record. In general terms, FOI only relates to records that are not available by other means. Conversely, if an applicant tries to access an FOIable document by another means, he/she won't get it.

There is no guaranteed response under FOI either.

smccarrick wrote:

A lot of the documents might contain circumspect information (e.g. land titles that may not be uptodate, inaccurate mapping, schemes that have been superceded or references to people which may not already be in the public domain. In practice this means examining each document individually and where a decision is made to partially release information- photocopying it and blacking out any personal information on the photocopy, before photocopying it again and releasing the photocopy of the photocopy.......

Does your section charge for the process of examining the documents and making decisions as part of the search/retrieval charge?

The_Conductor

antoinolachtnai wrote:

This is always the story. The trail always goes cold on this when you ask that question. Anyway, the new charges imposed were structured so as to vastly reduce appeals as much as they were to reduce actual requests. A ten year old could see what the motivations behind the change were.

I'm simply not in a position to discuss specific examples, I'd like to have a job to go to on Monday morning.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

This is untrue. Fees for significant FOI searches were provided for in the 1997 legislation.

If you are talking about section 47 of the original act- it only allowed for the head of a Department to impose a flat fee of £40 if they were of the opinion that the cost of fulfilling the request was likely to exceed this amount- or a random amount to be determined by them taking into account actual costs. It also specified that were the cost of retrieving this deposit likely to exceed the deposit itself, that the deposit may be considered forfeit- which in practice was what happened. Under Section 47, paragraph 7 (a) for detailed searches- the fee to be charged was only prescribed as 20% of the actual cost of supplying the information.

A specific schedule detailing an hourly search rate, was enforced under SI 264 of 2003, enacting the Freedom of Information Ammendment Act (2003), and detailed in the ammendment act itself. A copy of this is to be found here.

In practice- charges were rarely applied under the original act at all, the discretionary decision of the head of department would normally have been to waive them.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Yes, it would mean they would not get a guaranteed response, it would mean they wouldn't get the record. In general terms, FOI only relates to records that are not available by other means. Conversely, if an applicant tries to access an FOIable document by another means, he/she won't get it.

Not necessarily- I know of plenty of cases where records were requested, which could have been FOI'ed, but were subsequently supplied (I also know of cases for reasons of privacy etc, where the requests were denied or found to be not relevant to the particular enquiry. FOI is a different manner of accessing records- but it does not mean that the records are sealed to requesters other than those applying under the FOI Acts. Obviously I cannot quote examples for legal reasons.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

There is no guaranteed response under FOI either.

You will receive an acknowledgement of your request detailing whether such documents exist, and whether they may be released (there are numerous reasons for denying access to particular documents). You may not get the records you are looking for- but at very least you'll know whether they exist or not.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Does your section charge for the process of examining the documents and making decisions as part of the search/retrieval charge?

Where I work we have a dedicated FOI section to whom all FOI are directed in the first instance. They coordinate responses to the enquirers, and collate information from the different sections around the country. They decide what is to be, or is not to be released, and following consultation with the different sections into the actual time consumed in compiling the information- decide what charge, if any, should be applied to the enquirer. If a particular task is recognised as onerous in nature- a section may inform the FOI section of the likely time and staffing requirements necessary to fulfill a particular request so that the enquirer may be made aware of the cost associated with their enquiry.

S.

antoinolachtnai

smccarrick wrote:

I'm simply not in a position to discuss specific examples, I'd like to have a job to go to on Monday morning.

I appreciate that. I think it woudl be better to put aside things that are just hearsay and just work from facts that are actually on record.

If you are talking about section 47 of the original act- it only allowed for the head of a Department to impose a flat fee of £40 if they were of the opinion that the cost of fulfilling the request was likely to exceed this amount- or a random amount to be determined by them taking into account actual costs. It also specified that were the cost of retrieving this deposit likely to exceed the deposit itself, that the deposit may be considered forfeit- which in practice was what happened. Under Section 47, paragraph 7 (a) for detailed searches- the fee to be charged was only prescribed as 20% of the actual cost of supplying the information.

It says 'not less than' 20 percent, not a maximum of 20 percent. It does not say anything about a flat fee of £40. It says that where the costs are likely to exceed £40, that a deposit must be collected.

In practice- charges were rarely applied under the original act at all, the discretionary decision of the head of department would normally have been to waive them.

So the reason why they were getting all these massive requests had nothing to do with a deficiency in the legislation. It had to do with the HoD's not inefficiency in imposing them.

Not necessarily- I know of plenty of cases where records were requested, which could have been FOI'ed, but were subsequently supplied (I also know of cases for reasons of privacy etc, where the requests were denied or found to be not relevant to the particular enquiry. FOI is a different manner of accessing records- but it does not mean that the records are sealed to requesters other than those applying under the FOI Acts. Obviously I cannot quote examples for legal reasons.

Sure, but these are matters of discretion where procedures were informal. The same documents might have been supplied if there were no FOI act at all.

You will receive an acknowledgement of your request detailing whether such documents exist, and whether they may be released (there are numerous reasons for denying access to particular documents). You may not get the records you are looking for- but at very least you'll know whether they exist or not.

Practice varies on this. Many departments and agencies do not supply a schedule of records.

There is no real requirement to respond, although there is a technical requirement. The Act makes clear that non-response is refusal.

An appeal on an FOI issue can take any amount of time, 3 years is a realistic amount of time to allow for a reasonably complex request.

Where I work we have a dedicated FOI section to whom all FOI are directed in the first instance. They coordinate responses to the enquirers, and collate information from the different sections around the country. They decide what is to be, or is not to be released, and following consultation with the different sections into the actual time consumed in compiling the information- decide what charge, if any, should be applied to the enquirer. If a particular task is recognised as onerous in nature- a section may inform the FOI section of the likely time and staffing requirements necessary to fulfill a particular request so that the enquirer may be made aware of the cost associated with their enquiry.

S.

You can't charge the compilation time or the decisionmaking time, only the search and retrieval time.

Victor

smccarrick wrote:

In theory the data should be available free to view by anyone.

Land registry records are private.

godtabh

antoinolachtnai wrote:

You can't charge the compilation time or the decisionmaking time, only the search and retrieval time.

#

Why not? If it was the private sector it would