You've only partiality quoted me. The act, as we all know, is lacking in detail but the costs that are thought to be reasonable are those I've detailed and this would apply to a third-party.
If some kind of specialist retrieval were necessary - and this is unusual - the authority would need to show why that was necessary and detail the costs. A blanket "third party fee" would not be acceptable. On Jan 23, 2012 10:44 AM, "Mark Goodge" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23/01/2012 10:33, Colm Howard-Lloyd wrote: > >> The authority must be specific about costs. Time must always be charged >> at £25/hour: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/**uksi/2004/3244/regulation/4/ >> **made <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244/regulation/4/made> >> > > Yes, but only in cases where the cost is attributable to time. Where the > cost is attributable to any other method of charging (eg, a third-party > supplier's flat-rate fee), then that doesn't apply. > > Mark > -- > Sent from my Babbage Difference Engine 2 > http://mark.goodge.co.uk > > ______________________________**_________________ > developers-public mailing list > developers-public@lists.**mysociety.org<[email protected]> > https://secure.mysociety.org/**admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/** > developers-public<https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public> > > Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/**admin/lists/mailman/options/** > developers-public/colm%**40truthmonkey.org<https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/colm%40truthmonkey.org> >
_______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
