Open RichardTaylor opened 5 years ago
Not adverse to this – it would reduce complexity around https://github.com/mysociety/alaveteli/blob/86392ed77386a89db40bb57e479d51ed283635fc/app/models/info_request.rb#L880-L900.
Going to attempt to use the "Transfer issue" feature on GitHub to move this to https://github.com/mysociety/alaveteli as this would be a global change. (Makes sense as other countries have Right to Know law, rather than FOI)…
This issue appears equivalent to adding the ability to make a request with no legislation associated with it, and then perhaps enabling that to be made the default for an Alaveteli installation.
Linking this to the discussion at:
https://github.com/mysociety/alaveteli/issues/6207#issuecomment-820406814
Given mySociety's current interest in requests for environmental information this might be something there is now greater organisational interest in addressing.
We've had a case where a authority was confused by how to treat a request, when the requester explicitly mentioned EIR in the body, but had apparently (from the perspective of the authority) referred to Freedom of Information in the subject.
A more generic subject line in outgoing messages may avoid requests being treated too narrowly as requests under the Freedom of Information Act; when actually a request may be responded to irrespective of a legal requirement to respond, or other access to information law, may apply eg. common law, Environmental Information Regulations, Human Rights law, The Civil Procedure Rules etc.
Notes: The subject line is changed in eir_only cases so it begins with: "Environmental Information Regulations request". That the site slips text into subject lines at all may well surprise users. It is important to flag correspondence as a request for information. There has been a tribunal case where a party said:
and the judge said: