This Q&A addresses the question of whether a private provider of services to a public authority is required to provide a substantive response to a direct request for information concerning those services made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000). FIA 2000 reflects a distinction between public bodies and private individuals and companies, by restricting an individual’s general right to access information to that held by ‘public authorities’ (FIA 2000, s 1(1)). The term ‘public authority’ is defined by FIA 2000, s 3(1) as including three categories of entity: Scheduled bodies A body listed in FIA 2000, Sch 1 Pt I (presently including government departments, local government, the NHS, maintained schools and certain other educational institutions, the police, and other, individually-named non-departmental public bodies). FIA 2000, Sch 1

The consequences of making an error in sending a break notice can be significant. The lease may not allow the tenant to serve a notice save on particular anniversaries and the consequence of an invalid break notice is therefore often that the tenancy will continue for a further period, which may be significant. Although technicalities may not invalidate the notice if a reasonable recipient would have understood it, this is an issue of fact and construction. Leases may contain provision in respect of the landlord confirming acceptance of receipt of a break notice. This may be in respect of the method by which the notice is served, such as in Orchard (Developments)

Register of members The statutory requirements relating to a trade union’s membership are set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992). Under TULR(C)A 1992, s 24 a trade union must, with certain specified exceptions, compile and maintain a register of the names and addresses of its members and must ensure, so far as practicable, that the register is accurate and is kept up to date. There is no statutory requirement to keep more detailed information relating to members, such as their employer, their job title, or a breakdown of their affiliation to a particular branch (even though such information may in practice routinely be kept). A trade union must also: • send a membership audit certificate to the Certification Officer in respect of each reporting period stating

Estate agents Estate agents must comply with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1277 (CPUT Regulations 2008). The CPUT Regulations 2008 prohibit traders from engaging in unfair commercial practices in their dealings with consumers, eg: • failing to act in accordance with honest market practice based on an objective standard of estate agency practice, or fails to act in good faith • impairing the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision, so that they make a decision they would otherwise not have made • acting in a misleading or aggressive manner • engaging in one or any of the 31 practices listed in CPUT Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1277, Sch 1 Sanctions for breach of the above include a fine, civil court order, or criminal conviction. As well as the above, estate agents must comply with the Business Protection from Marketing

The Registrar of Companies has the power to take steps to strike off a company if he has reasonable cause to believe that a company is not carrying on business or in operation. The Registrar is likely to instigate this process if a company has failed to make its annual statutory filings within a reasonable period following the filing deadline under section 1000 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). There is a set procedure that the Registrar follows in relation to exercising his powers to strike off a company, which involves a series of notices to the company to make it aware of the Registrar’s intentions and a notice in the Gazette stating that

We have not been able to find any statutory guidance on the issue raised in this Q&A. However, it appears that what is appropriate expenditure on running costs of a charity will

As noted in our News Analysis piece: In theory—CDM Regulations and novation, by Seb Oram, construction law barrister at 3PB Barristers, where as a result of a novation, the principal designer is no longer engaged directly by the client, this situation does not contravene the CDM Regulations, as long as a principal designer is appointed there is no requirement

This Q&A discusses the reasons why a lender might want to take separate security over individual assets as well as taking a debenture containing fixed and floating charges over all the assets of a company incorporated in England or Wales. A lender wishing to take security will typically want to take a debenture containing fixed and floating charges over all the assets of the company. This is because a debenture can create security over all the assets of the company (including those that can only be subject to a floating charge because of their fluctuating nature). A floating charge also confers the important benefit on the lender of the ability to appoint an administrator out of court. For more information on debentures and floating charges, see Practice Notes: Key features of debentures, Fixed and floating charges and Floating charges. Common reasons for taking separate asset security as well as a debenture

The benefit of a restrictive covenant is a ‘chargeable interest’ for the purposes of stamp duty land tax (SDLT). It is the benefit of a restriction affecting the value of an estate in land. For more detail, see Practice Note: Land transactions, chargeable interests and chargeable transactions. Accordingly, the release of a restrictive covenant is an acquisition of that interest by the person whose interest or right is benefitted by the transaction and a disposal by the person ceasing to

Putting a gate across a highway without the consent of the highway would very likely constitute a public nuisance which would attract both criminal and civil action. The highway authority has a general duty to prevent the stopping up or

Section 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984) is intended to prevent the conviction of a defendant on evidence given by a single witness of their unsupported visual impression (opinion) of a defendant's speed: 'A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit.' Where the sole evidence is opinion based then the evidence needs to be backed up by corroborating evidence, either another opinion or some factual evidence such as a speedometer. In the case of Crossland v Director of Public Prosecutions,

There is no prescribed form for an agreement under section 29B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). However, the agreement must be in writing on the basis that under LTA 1954, s 69(2), any agreement between the landlord and tenant under LTA 1954 means an agreement in writing. Case law has found that emails may not satisfy the requirement of 'in writing' and accordingly