Hi all Have just had 2 more ambulance-chasing letters (both of the same date) from HK, that well-known scourge of councils up and down the UK. These letters follows a FOI request they made, and which Ealing answered using info supplied by me, in 2008. Only now have they come back asking for more, saying 'further to our FOI request of xxx date 2009'. Moreover, 1 letter relates to 1 part of Ealing's reply to their FOI request while the other comes from a different person and relates to another section of the same reply! They have demonstrated similar internal communication issues with their letters to Ealing before. I am looking forward to replying and pointing out their errors on the above, but another point has just occurred to me. This is that Ealing's reply to their FOI request contained the following text:- ' You are free to use the information supplied for your own use, including non-commercial research purposes....however any other type of re-use, for example by publishing the information, issuing copies to the public or marketing will require Ealing's permission as copyright holder'. If HK is using this information for its own commercial purposes (seeking to claw back unspent S106 for the relevant developers), does that mean HK is violating the terms on which the FOI info was supplied? Mark
