Normally built Company Director overturns Speeding fine.

[vonhosen]

Chrisgr31 said:

vonhosen said:

I think it's reasonable to expect to have to submit a FOI request in order for such information to be researched.
I think it's reasonable to expect to have to pay a fee for a FOI request to be investigated.
I think it's reasonable to expect that there may be a refusal where the information is not held or in a readily accessible format etc.
Having made a request, if any expense is incurred, such as an employee's working time in servicing that request, I think it's reasonable to expect a fee to be retained.

I disagree. What's the point of saying the information is only available through a FOI request? If you dont have it save everyones time say so, if you do have it release it, if it would cost too much to finf it out say so. The fee for a FOI is hardly significant and no doubt most of it is used up by the cost of the administration.

In this sort of case it would be far better for the authority to be open, they might be respected more for it.

Because somebody has to investigate whether they have it & if they have collate it & prepare a suitable response.
You don't know what the request is going to be until it's made & only then can someone start work on it diverting them from Police business.
As I said, no problem with the information being given if held, just it is reasonable to expect a modest fee towards offsetting the cost of the work involved.

[Boosted LS1]

They can find the time for prosecutions no matter how slim the success may be.

[vonhosen]

Boosted LS1 said:

They can find the time for prosecutions no matter how slim the success may be.

Investigating suspected offences is their job, researching requests for data from newspapers isn't.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Boosted LS1 said:

They can find the time for prosecutions no matter how slim the success may be.

Investigating suspected offences is their job, researching requests for data from newspapers isn't.

Digby said:

"The Post asked Nottinghamshire Police how many speeding offences had been recorded on the road since that date but was told the information was only available via a Freedom of Information request."

Shock!

And having that basic information to hand is their job if they are unlawfully prosecuting people so they can issue the relevant refunds. If/when they have an issue similar to cases where the relevant paperwork and traffic orders aren't in place.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

Investigating suspected offences is their job, researching requests for data from newspapers isn't.

I can find many examples of people fighting to get FOI requests due to suspect fines and points, let's not forget to mention those, too.

Quite often, they are forced to obtain more information - info which may not be readily available - because their basic requests were shut down right from the word go.

Then what? Just keep paying and paying to clear your name?

[vonhosen]

speedyguy said:

vonhosen said:

Boosted LS1 said:

They can find the time for prosecutions no matter how slim the success may be.

Investigating suspected offences is their job, researching requests for data from newspapers isn't.

Digby said:

"The Post asked Nottinghamshire Police how many speeding offences had been recorded on the road since that date but was told the information was only available via a Freedom of Information request."

Shock!

And having that basic information to hand is their job if they are unlawfully prosecuting people so they can issue the relevant refunds. If/when they have an issue similar to cases where the relevant paperwork and traffic orders aren't in place.

They weren't unlawfully prosecuting him, he was convicted.
If they have the information already published & available in public documents then yes they should give it. If the government want the data they should research & give it. If private or commercial entities want it they should submit a FOI request & pay for it, doing research for those entities is not their job.

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

Investigating suspected offences is their job, researching requests for data from newspapers isn't.

I can find many examples of people fighting to get FOI requests due to suspect fines and points, let's not forget to mention those, too.

Quite often, they are forced to obtain more information - info which may not be readily available - because their basic requests were shut down right from the word go.

Then what? Just keep paying and paying to clear your name?

They are entitled to used/unused material in disclosure if they are pleading not guilty.
If what they are requesting is not used/unused material in a case & they want them to research data for them then they should submit a FOI request & pay for it. How many speeding offences that have been detected on a road has nothing to do with defending their own speeding case, particularly in a case where the individual has been convicted by the court & it's an unconnected commercial entity making the request.

[drf765]

vonhosen said:

speedyguy said:

vonhosen said:

Boosted LS1 said:

They can find the time for prosecutions no matter how slim the success may be.

Investigating suspected offences is their job, researching requests for data from newspapers isn't.

Digby said:

"The Post asked Nottinghamshire Police how many speeding offences had been recorded on the road since that date but was told the information was only available via a Freedom of Information request."

Shock!

And having that basic information to hand is their job if they are unlawfully prosecuting people so they can issue the relevant refunds. If/when they have an issue similar to cases where the relevant paperwork and traffic orders aren't in place.

They weren't unlawfully prosecuting him, he was convicted.
If they have the information already published & available in public documents then yes they should give it. If the government want the data they should research & give it. If private or commercial entities want it they should submit a FOI request & pay for it, doing research for those entities is not their job.

No not at all. Information already published is exempted from release via FoI. There is an absolute exemption in section 21 of the act and it is not subject to any public interest test.

Section 21 exists to prevent the need for public bodies subject to the Act having to act as data centres and providers to curious people. When the data is already published the requestor can simply access it by the published means. The public body may need to point the requestor to where it is published but that is all.

I deal with a number of public bodies who have, out of ignorance of the limit of their responsibilities under the Act, gone searching around for the requested information from other bodies and organisations because they think when requested they should provide the information. The duty to assist a requestor doesn't extend that far.

The Act was brought in without any thought for the £millions it was going to cost public bodies to service.

If someone wants a traffic regulation order the police, CPS and councils do not have to provide them on request because all such TRO's are exempted because they are either already published or are about to be and the requestor can simply download the one requested without bothering the police, CPS or council. If I was at one of those organisations I would simply say NO, exempt, get it online, then I would get on with my proper job.

Edited by drf765 on Sunday 18th September 15:59

[vonhosen]

drf765 said:

vonhosen said:

speedyguy said:

vonhosen said:

Boosted LS1 said:

They can find the time for prosecutions no matter how slim the success may be.

Investigating suspected offences is their job, researching requests for data from newspapers isn't.

Digby said:

"The Post asked Nottinghamshire Police how many speeding offences had been recorded on the road since that date but was told the information was only available via a Freedom of Information request."

Shock!

And having that basic information to hand is their job if they are unlawfully prosecuting people so they can issue the relevant refunds. If/when they have an issue similar to cases where the relevant paperwork and traffic orders aren't in place.

They weren't unlawfully prosecuting him, he was convicted.
If they have the information already published & available in public documents then yes they should give it. If the government want the data they should research & give it. If private or commercial entities want it they should submit a FOI request & pay for it, doing research for those entities is not their job.

No not at all. Information already published is exempted from release via FoI. There is an absolute exemption in section 21 of the act and it is not subject to any public interest test.

Section 21 exists to prevent the need for public bodies subject to the Act having to act as data centres and providers to curious people. When the data is already published the requestor can simply access it by the published means. The public body may need to point the requestor to where it is published but that is all.

That's what I meant by give it to them, by pointing them to the already published & available data.