Judge rejects free access to property information
Local authorities are not obliged to provide free access to raw property information, the High Court has ruled.
The decision follows a judicial review action by search company OneSearch Direct, challenging York City Council’s refusal to allow access to its property records so that it could obtain search information for home information packs.
The council operates a ‘one-stop-shop’ solution, using a computerised system with property information held in a refined format, which can be purchased for a fee. It no longer allows free access for people to inspect unrefined data.
The High Court said there was nothing unlawful in the operation of this policy. In doing so, it reached a different conclusion to the recent decision of the Information Tribunal, reported in last week’s issue (see [2010] Gazette, 25 March, 3), which ruled that East Riding of Yorkshire Council should have allowed a personal search company free access to inspect raw property data.
The court heard that of approximately 370 local authorities in England and Wales, two-thirds provide full access to property information and one-third do not.
In reaching his decision, Mr Justice Hickinbottom stressed that the ruling was decided only on the issues before him, in a case where the council charged on a cost recovery-only basis.
He said if other councils made charges that included a ‘significant profit element’ or in a manner that showed ‘an improper use of their monopolistic position’ in respect of raw data, it might result in a different decision.
David Kempster, marketing director at MDA SearchFlow, said: ‘Private search companies could continue to fight this local authority by local authority, which could take a long time.
‘The future of searches will be based on who can package and deliver effectively the interpreted data from the local authority, rather than risking transcribing partial, incomplete or uninterpreted data that could leave conveyancers exposed in the transaction,’ he said.
Ronnie Park, managing director of OneSearch Direct, said: ‘The court’s decision not to denounce York council’s anti-competitive behaviour towards private search companies, despite our frequent requests to create a level playing field for the industry, is disappointing in the extreme. For too long a postcode lottery has existed in the UK, creating a huge disparity in
the quality and time taken for vital information to be accessed by search companies, and for that reason we are now considering an appeal to this decision.
‘With this case, we expected to kick start an improved attitude from councils towards the property search industry, which would be in line with the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT) report on the issue in 2004.Fortunately, some 70% of local authorities currently comply with the OFT recommendations for best practice and we continue to work closely and successfully with
them.
'However, it seems that York council has found a loophole in the statutory instrument (SI) laid down by the government, enabling them to create a monopoly which cannot benefit the home-buying process and the local York community they serve. The SI is now to be passed back to the Department of Communities and Local Government, where we will hope to see improvements in the wording of the SI.’
Comments
Free access to property search information
Because the result isn't the one that they wanted they have the opportunity to ask for re-wording of a Statutory Instrument???? How does that work then and talking of loopholes some of the private sector work extremely hard to find them to trip up Local Authorities at every turn. What seems to be forgotten is the fact that we actually work to rules, regulations, guidance and legislation and are pulled up quite quickly if we don't. Who is actually making sure that private companies work to the rules. I'm sure most LA's can count on one hand the number of companies who are buying the whole of the CON29 information which is quite worrying and against the legislation/regulations.
Where will it all end ?
Can someone please define 'level playing field' and 'anti competive behaviour' . So the search companies want the information for free ? Then the authority gets Zero for doing the work and the search company CHARGES its client for the information and makes a profit. That makes it level does it ? OneSearch no longer asking Building Control information of a local authority unless there is planning history going back in the last 5 years. (to make more money to fill their pockets) They think that if there is none, then it means there cannot be any Building Control information. Now what does that tell you ? How daft is that ? Anyone who knows anything about planning will be aware that, this is nonsense. Would you want this company to do your search based on this 'knowledge' ?
free access to property search information
They keep mentioning a level playing field but how can it be level if LA's have to fund the refinement of information or collection into easily searchable datasets and then give it to a commercial interest for free and they then sell it on. Should the local tax payer fund such activity. I think if you put it to the public with all of the facts and not just the opinions of some persoanl search companies, then they probably wouldn't think that that was acceptable. LA's have a responsibility to the local tax payer to use the money they pay wisely. Yes lets have a level playing filed were all have access to the data, contribute towards it's collection and maintenance and ensures quality and reliability to the consumer. How many personal search companies still say information not available when in fact it is, but they don't like paying towards it's maitenance. About time Trading Standards took some of these issues on which give personal searchers a bad reputation within the profession.