Freedom of Information Act being abused with vexatious FOI requests.

[brassnecked]

They can however legally stop access by a utility company using a Warrant based on the 1950 something Gas Act, as it does not allow forced entry beyond drilling the lock, so fitting a bolt or two means they cannot legally gain access. The utility companies are misusing legislation and purjering Courts to get the Warrant, they have no reasonable suspicion that there is a sagety issue, they want entry to fit a payment meter. The bloke in Lancashire gets pretty much all Warrant requests refused if the debtor contacts him in time for the hearing (a reason why certain companies are behaving extremely dodgily to prevent debtor going to the court hearing) because he always gets them to hire an electrcian or gas plumber to certify the meters, then show it to the court, so the court cannot issue a warrant, as the debtor has proven the meter is safe. There is a warrant to replace meters with payment ones, but it does not confer or allow forced entry, only entry with the debtors permission.

 

In some of the letters sent to the debtor, as by law they have to give the debtor a chance to attend the hearing and oppose the warrant, every date including when they will enact the warrant if granted uses British date format, but the court hearing date used american format.... its all a clerical error of course, because a system will accidently use 2 different dating formats its a well known problem, in other news pigs have started flying.

Yes in that circumstance the Utilities are naughty, my proposition was a Landlord needing do the legally required Gas Safety Check, which if not completed can put the Landlord in court for failing to carry them out; but you have highlighted a severe abuse of power by Utilities.

[ThedaBara]

The following is a good starting point.

 

http://www.gov.scot/About/Information/FOI/access#a3

 

 

Thank you! TB

[caledfwlch]

Yes in that circumstance the Utilities are naughty, my proposition was a Landlord needing do the legally required Gas Safety Check, which if not completed can put the Landlord in court for failing to carry them out; but you have highlighted a severe abuse of power by Utilities.

 

I would have thought a Landlord could go in without a warrant, since they can do so for emergency issues, such as a potential gas problem, flooding etc.

[brassnecked]

I would have thought a Landlord could go in without a warrant, since they can do so for emergency issues, such as a potential gas problem, flooding etc.

There is a right of entry for what you say, Caled, however some tenants are silly or obstructive and will refuse entry, so a warrant is needed to do the check, imagine the consequences in a block of flats if their cooker leaked gas, or the boiler was faulty and there was an explosion in that tenant's flat. the Landlord would be up in front of the beak for failure to carry out the checks that they must do by law.

[mikeymack2002]

Capita need to be subject to FOI. They have so many fingers in different pies they are corrosive to the Public Good.

 

 

Why send a FoI when you have stories like this >> http://www.thefedonline.org.uk/fed-news/life-in-the-pip-queue-claimant-left-chasing-shadows-after-ghost-assessment

[ericsbrother]

Witha SAR you have to show that you are the subject of the data you are requesting. The simplest way of stopping abuse is to require some form of identification, either personal or corporate in the case od newspapers etc. Then if an individual sends in more than 6 requets that can be considered vex they dont get any more requests answered. Like vexatious litigants their names could go on a public list.

Not a perfect system but workable

[Bailiff Advice]

Keeping with the subject of vexatious Freedom of Information requests, the two requests highlighted today on SCOOP not only account for almost 400 FOI requests but far more worrying, is that most requests end up as 'reviews' which are very costly indeed for all government departments.

 

What is most alarming though is to see that in the last 3 days (I have not gone back any further than this) approx 20% of all Freedom of Information requests on the What do They Know website come from one of more of the following aliases:

 

 

 

 

Neil Gilliatt

 

Rex Ole

 

Malcolm admin

 

Cyril Alfab

 

Becky Saunder

 

Dan Stevens

 

Enid Brighton

 

Arnold Layne

 

Lee Johnsone

 

Cherie Jerez

 

Hump Balustrade

 

R.Skinner

 

Emma Dale

 

Sacksen Molar

 

Enid Brighton

 

Gary Pearce

 

Stan Higgles ton

 

fFraudwATCH UK

 

Derek Prickles.

 

 

As a frequent viewer to the What do They Know Freedom of Information request site, I have been alarmed at the astonishingly high proportion of daily requests that are from one or more of the above aliases.

 

The level of vexatious requests from this one individual have today reached an all time high.

 

Today, almost 40% of all the Freedom of Information requests on What do They Know are made by Neil Gilliatt with his alias: fFraudwATCH UK. It simply beggars belief.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?464366-Unaccountable-3-a-Freedom-of-Information-request-to-Local-Government-Ombudsmen

Edited May 10, 2016 by Andyorch
CAG Link added

[mikeymack2002]

Just a point about this topic if I may? It was in 2007 that a topic was discussed and is listed in the daily Hansard that someone had done a lot of research and would have had to make an enormous amount of requests. So why would this person ask for so much information? Wouldn't they then be the same as those listed above? They may have used their real name but as an observation its not about the names but the amount of requests I believe. This person that I know about must have made just as many!!!

 

 

I cannot link to this as it has information that I cannot publish. This is to protect the identity of the person named. With this information it would then be possible to check against the linked register to see just how many requests were made.

 

 

Since when has it become necessary to comment on the amount of requests and what does it achieve? Why has it become necessary to list all of the names what is the reason behind this?

 

 

What will be the next topic of uninteresting information?? Perhaps we could start a topic about user names? Then ask why do they use so many different ones?

 

 

I thought this area of the board was to discuss bailiff issues/threads not for other topics. IS not the Bear Garden the best place for off topic posts?

[mikeymack2002]

Capita need to be subject to FOI. They have so many fingers in different pies they are corrosive to the Public Good.

 

 

I would say they are not that bad all of the time as I have just banked a cheque from TVL for over £100 as I had overpaid my weekly amount due for nearly a year.

 

 

Nice refund from Capita by the way and within 3 days of asking for it too...

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Since when has it become necessary to comment on the amount of requests and what does it achieve? Why has it become necessary to list all of the names what is the reason behind this?

 

What will be the next topic of uninteresting information?? Perhaps we could start a topic about user names? Then ask why do they use so many different ones?

I thought this area of the board was to discuss bailiff issues/threads not for other topics. IS not the Bear Garden the best place for off topic posts?

 

The hundreds of FOI requests raised by these aliases are mainly all to do with the issuing of a summons (for council tax arrears) and the subsequent enforcement of a Liability Order. Hence, the subject is very relevant indeed to this area of the site.

 

A significant number of people have viewed the thread since it was started and therefore must have found it of interest. If you don't, there is no compulsion to read it.

[Peterbard]

As a frequent viewer to the What do They Know Freedom of Information request site, I have been alarmed at the astonishingly high proportion of daily requests that are from one or more of the above aliases.

 

The level of vexatious requests from this one individual have today reached an all time high.

 

Today, almost 40% of all the Freedom of Information requests on What do They Know are made by Neil Gilliatt with his alias: fFraudwATCH UK. It simply beggars belief.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/list/successful

 

I see little point in asking the same question over and over again, in the hope that someone will give a different answer Plainly it is time to admit that you are wrong and move on. These incorrect notions can so easily become fixations, then so much time is wasted when more gainful pursuits could be pursued.

[mikeymack2002]

As far as viewing goes there is no positive as can be clearly seen. All those 'views and so few replies, means only one thing it is of no interest doesn't it. I only responded because I could and wanted too.

 

 

Why would anyone want to spend their precious time in getting useless trivia if they have a business to run? This I find interesting in a way because its trivia and information that is not required for any specific reason. Just like a sugar and soap poultice which is only useful if you have an infected cut/injury.

 

 

What might help is if you were to post something about the review for the new regs but that's been postponed hasn't it? Or one about the lack of support for the disabled and so on things of interest will get more replies would it not? But posting about Joe Bloggs asking questions many times is well time to say bye to this thread.....

 

 

I have an important thread on overcharging but I don't look to see if it has had 100 or 1000 views its information being made available to those that need it or didn't know they were being overcharged and owed Hundreds of pounds.... That's an interesting thread.. Bye BA

[Bailiff Advice]

The hundreds of FOI requests raised by these aliases are mainly all to do with the issuing of a summons (for council tax arrears) and the subsequent enforcement of a Liability Order. Hence, the subject is very relevant indeed to this area of the site.

 

A significant number of people have viewed the thread since it was started and therefore must have found it of interest. If you don't, there is no compulsion to read it.

 

40% of all Freedom of Information requests featured on What do They Know on 8th May are from one person (Mr Gilliatt) and concern his long standing (over many years) dispute with his local authoritiy; North East Lincs Council. The background to this dispute is explained in this very short thread:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?456886-North-East-Lincs-Council-Threaten-bailiffs(2-Viewing)-nbsp

 

I notice today that Mr Gilliatt has accused the Local Government Ombudsman of being:

 

'A state sponsored extortion racket designed to divert money via the casino justice system from victims of maladministration to those in the legal profession'

[Bailiff Advice]

I see little point in asking the same question over and over again, in the hope that someone will give a different answer Plainly it is time to admit that you are wrong and move on.

 

These incorrect notions can so easily become fixations, then so much time is wasted when more gainful pursuits could be pursued.

 

And your above point DB was in fact the basis of a letter from North East Lincs Council to Neil Gilliatt a couple of years ago. Full details can be read here:

 

 

'I find it difficult to understand why you are repeatedly asking different officers and councillors to re-visit your complaint and repeat the stage 2 investigation when this would necessarily involve the same people who have already responded to your complaint and could therefore add nothing to the response.

 

You have been offered the opportunity to have your complaint independently reviewed on behalf of the Chief Executive (the stage 2 response and the letter from Debt Recovery Manager on the 7th March) but have rebuffed this offer. The review would focus on:

 

We are happy to complete a review but will not sanction the necessarily unproductive repeat of the stage 2 investigation.

 

Your

scatter gun approach

of sending the same request to numerous officers and councillors is taking up a disproportionate amount of officer time and is, unfairly for the other citizens of N.E.Lincolnshire, diverting resource from the provision of the services we provide.

 

Should you continue with this approach I will have no option but to ask that staff across the council do not respond to any further requests regarding this issue.

 

We are unable to stop any costs incurred with Rossendales as this would result in The Council paying those costs".

 

 

PS: The background to the above letter can be read here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?456886-North-East-Lincs-Council-Threaten-bailiffs&p=4832725&viewfull=1#post4832725

[Bailiff Advice]

40% of all Freedom of Information requests featured on What do They Know on 8th May are from one person (Mr Gilliatt) and concern his long standing (over many years) dispute with his local authoritiy; North East Lincs Council. The background to this dispute is explained in this very short thread:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?456886-North-East-Lincs-Council-Threaten-bailiffs(2-Viewing)-nbsp

 

I notice today that Mr Gilliatt has accused the Local Government Ombudsman of being:

 

'A state sponsored extortion racket designed to divert money via the casino justice system from victims of maladministration to those in the legal profession'

 

Mr Gilliatt's Freedom of Information request to the Local Government Ombudsman features today on the SCOOP news forum (link below).

 

Mr Gilliatt's above comment (that the LGO is a 'state sponsored extortion racket etc') is in response to the following reply from the LGO:

 

 

'Ms Pook has asked me to reply your email asking this be refered to Dr Martin. Dr Martin, has delegated her authority to decide complaints to her staff. There is provision for a senior office to review decisions on cases, but there is no provision for a further review or for the Ombudsman herself to reply to correspondence about decisions we have already made. I should add the Ombudsman is not accountable to a government minister for the decisions she and her staff make on complaints.

 

Mr Oxley's decision has been confirmed by my review. The only way to challenge an Ombudsman decision is through the courts by judicial review, not by continuing to write to the Ombudsman’s office. I strongly advise you to take legal advice before starting a judicial review of our decision.

 

We shall read any further correspondence but we shall not acknowledge or reply to it unless we decide it contains genuinely new information which affects the decision we have made on the case'.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?464366-Unaccountable-3-a-Freedom-of-Information-request-to-Local-Government-Ombudsmen

 

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

[Bailiff Advice]

40% of all Freedom of Information requests featured on What do They Know on 8th May are from one person (Mr Gilliatt) and concern his long standing (over many years) dispute with his local authoritiy; North East Lincs Council. The background to this dispute is explained in this very short thread:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?456886-North-East-Lincs-Council-Threaten-bailiffs(2-Viewing)-nbsp

 

I notice today that Mr Gilliatt has accused the Local Government Ombudsman of being:

 

'A state sponsored extortion racket designed to divert money via the casino justice system from victims of maladministration to those in the legal profession'

 

In his quest to find a website that will allow him a platform to publicise his long obsession with North East Lincs Council, Neil Gilliatt has now taken to copying his entire dispute onto the Freeman on the Land site...Get into more debt for Free. It's been a week since he posted......not a single poster has responded to him.

[mikeymack2002]

In his quest to find a website that will allow him a platform to publicise his long obsession with North East Lincs Council, Neil Gilliatt has now taken to copying his entire dispute onto the Freeman on the Land site...Get into more debt for Free. It's been a week since he posted......not a single poster has responded to him.

 

 

Maybe the reason it has had no replies is because it is being discussed here (shoulder/head shake)

 

 

Surely this poster can create a blog lets say WordPress they can chat to their hearts are content plus the benefits of having no moderating either. This still gets their point of view out and they can control what content is published. But in this case like the post above they still get their point out because they are quoted on a forum by you which is a double negative. Why? Because you do their posting for them by posting their points/arguments to the net...

 

 

By doing so this gets their point out for them by you! So no need to get a WordPress account then is there. This Mr Gilliatt seems to have ticked you off for some reason would you care to elaborate on this? I ask simply to understand the complaint that's all! (discussion)

 

 

I didn't know about this FMoTL site thanks for giving me something to read! Though this is not a subject that has any meaning for me at all... A word of warning though is.

 

 

If you don't want to discuss a subject or have it discussed or get negative remarks then don't advertise it keep it hidden/quiet and it will go away....... !

[Peterbard]

 

 

If you don't want to discuss a subject or have it discussed or get negative remarks then don't advertise it keep it hidden/quiet and it will go away....... !

 

Good advice MM. WHY DONT YOU FOLLOW IT ?

[mikeymack2002]

Yet again I am lost as to what you mean DB please explain? PS: no need to shout (caps lock) I read perfectly well thx!!

 

 

As you have said before why the dig at a poster? (ME) I am just stating what is obvious plus asking a relevant question as to why the named person is causing such a stir for BA this is so I can understand why what when and so on (discussion) !!

[stu007]

OK this stops NOW I will not let this thread be used in this way WARNING or I close the Thread

 

[daverules]

Hello

sorry DB but I think you are wrong in this aspect, MM pointed out something I have been thinking

for a long time, I never knew about any other sites until I came on here and it wasn't long before I was

browsing that I found what is considered by certain members on CAG to be a dangerous and possibly

costly site to visit in respect that the wrong legal interpretation and advice is used.

 

Now going by the above I stated "site to visit in respect that the wrong legal interpretation and advice is is used"

and having visited the non mentionable site I can see two different versions of law, which is correct I have only a basic

idea but willing to read and learn, and I do so.

 

let each site stick to their interpretation and just help the people that go to what ever site they choose, hopefully

it will be the right one for them but this constant pick nicking and sniping will only drive people away.

 

Long time lurker and learnt a lot and still learning.

 

Regards

[brassnecked]

Fed up of the bickering, all that matters is someone in dire need gets the best and most appropriate advice for their situation. Now as my head is spinning with it all. aaaaaaaaaaagggghhhhh. Time to go Postal, where's the RPG?

[*RainbowTears*]

Fed up of the bickering, all that matters is someone in dire need gets the best and most appropriate advice for their situation. Now as my head is spinning with it all. aaaaaaaaaaagggghhhhh. Time to go Postal, where's the RPG?

 

I totally agree, this has to end now, as it's gone on for sooooooo long its become a tit for tat situation that no one can or will win.

 

It's time to move on & concentrate on helping those who require it, as that is what is important & what CAG is for!!

[Bailiff Advice]

Hello

sorry DB but I think you are wrong in this aspect, MM pointed out something I have been thinking for a long time, I never knew about any other sites until I came on here and it wasn't long before I was browsing that I found what is considered by certain members on CAG to be a dangerous and possibly costly site to visit in respect that the wrong legal interpretation and advice is used.

 

Now going by the above I stated "site to visit in respect that the wrong legal interpretation and advice is is used" and having visited the non mentionable site I can see two different versions of law, which is correct I have only a basic idea but willing to read and learn, and I do so.

 

let each site stick to their interpretation and just help the people that go to what ever site they choose, hopefully it will be the right one for them but this constant pick nicking and sniping will only drive people away.

 

Can I just say one thing:

 

On this thread I referrred to the vexatious user of the Freedom of Information Act now looking for another platform to embarrass his 'targets' (North East Lincs Council, Humberside Police, the Ministry of Justice, the Crown Prosecution Service, Rossendales Ltd, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Local Government Ombudsman and various judges etc etc). I mentioned that he has now taken to posting on the Freeman on the Land site; 'Get into More Debt for Free'. I think that some people may have confused the site name for another website.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I have slightly amended the site name as we would not want to advertise it on here. It is commonly referred to by its initials GOODF. The site is entirely based on the FMoTL theories. It should not be confused with another site.

 

It should certainly be avoided.

[brassnecked]

That site and it's advice is a one way street to penury and loss of goods, chattels and credibility if not even liberty as they end up in Strangeways Hotel for contempt.