Tribunal decision triggers PSI policy rethink
The UK First-Tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber [Information Rights] has published a 44 page decision notice (Decision EA.2009.0069_15.03.10) on the appeal by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council on the Information Commissioners decision of 27th July 2009. The Tribunal’s decision dismisses the appeal.
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 East Riding of Yorkshire Council v IC Additional Party Stanley Davis Group Limited t/a York Place EA/2009/0069 15/03/2010
The published decision states:
“DECISION OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
The appeal is dismissed and the Decision Notice date 27th July 2009 is to stand.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1. We have decided that the Information Commissioner was right to decide that East Riding of Yorkshire Council (“the Council”) should have made available for inspection, without charge, certain information on the impact of building regulations and traffic/highways control on a particular property. On the basis of the Information Commissioner’s interpretation of the scope of the request for information, which we consider to have been correct, the Council’s stance in refusing to permit inspection of the information was not reasonable under regulation 6 (1) (a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”).
2. this case started as an appeal to the Information Tribunal. However, by virtue of the Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2010, the Tribunal which has decided it is now constituted as a First-tier Tribunal.
Background
3. There has been a long established practice in England and Wales that, before residential or commercial property is purchased, the purchaser carries out what is commonly called a “local search”. The local authority would be requested to conduct a search of the Land Charges Register which it maintained and to answer certain questions designed to establish whether the property in question was, or might become, affected by certain activities which the local authority knew about. A standard set of questions was developed over the years by the Law Society and was incorporated in a standard form, known as Form CON29R. This would be sent to the relevant local authority with the appropriate fee and returned in due course completed to show the information and answers provided. Since the introduction of Home Information Packs in 2007 it is the seller, and not the buyer, who carries out local searches.
4. It is possible to obtain the answers to most, but not all, of the questions set out in Form CON29R by inspecting various public registers maintained by local authorities, as well as from other sources. A number of private organisations have developed services for obtaining the necessary information in this way and providing it to property sellers and those advising them. One such personal search company is Stanley Davis Group Limited. It provides its service under the trading name “York Place” and we will refer to it by that trading name in this decision.”
“Conclusion and remedy
49. In light of our findings as set out above the Information Commissioner was entitled to conclude that the Council had not complied with its obligations under EIR regulation 5(1). The information covered by the Request, being the information required to answer the questions 1.1 (f) – (h), 3.4 and 3.6 of form CON29R, should have been made available for inspection by York Place when requested and should now be disclosed.
50. Our decision is unanimous.
51. An appeal against this decision may be submitted to the Upper Tribunal. A person seeking permission to appeal must make a written application to the Tribunal for permission to appeal within 28 days of receipt of this decision. Such an application must identify the error or errors of law in the decision and state the result the party is seeking.”
PSI Charging Tribunal Service decision imminent
- 291 reads
