Granted/Reversed: Uncertified property utility bill information
March 09, 2009 Filed in: Granted
| Appealed to
court | Court
reversed | Chester
| Fees | Certified
copies | Non-specific
requests
Granted/Reversed: A request for
current and delinquent utility bill information
on a single property from the Chester Water
Authority, without the need to pay $15 for a
certified copy. The Delaware County Court of
Common Pleas reversed the OOR's decision in this
case, saying the request was not specific, in
that it did not indicate that certified copies
were not being requested.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Granted/Reversed: A request for current and delinquent utility bill information on a single property from the Chester Water Authority, without the need to pay $15 for a certified copy.
The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas reversed the OOR's decision in this case, saying the request was not specific, in that it did not indicate that certified copies were not being requested. [Synopsis of Court Decision]
The agency, in response to the appeal, argued that the request was not specific enough because it was for "utility information." The Office of Open Records found that the request was sufficiently specific to inform the agency that what was being requested was customer payment information. "The Authority's assertion of non-specificity for the first time after the appeal was filed is inappropriate and appears disingenuous," the OOR stated.
The Office of Open Records also noted that the agency's argument for assessing the certification fee does not apply because the requester did not request certification.
Signature Information Solutions, Inc. vs. Chester Water Authority -- AP 2009-0019
APPEALED TO DELAWARE COUNTY COURT: April 7, 2009
REVERSED BY DELAWARE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS: May 14, 2009
Granted/Reversed: A request for current and delinquent utility bill information on a single property from the Chester Water Authority, without the need to pay $15 for a certified copy.
The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas reversed the OOR's decision in this case, saying the request was not specific, in that it did not indicate that certified copies were not being requested. [Synopsis of Court Decision]
The agency, in response to the appeal, argued that the request was not specific enough because it was for "utility information." The Office of Open Records found that the request was sufficiently specific to inform the agency that what was being requested was customer payment information. "The Authority's assertion of non-specificity for the first time after the appeal was filed is inappropriate and appears disingenuous," the OOR stated.
The Office of Open Records also noted that the agency's argument for assessing the certification fee does not apply because the requester did not request certification.
Signature Information Solutions, Inc. vs. Chester Water Authority -- AP 2009-0019
APPEALED TO DELAWARE COUNTY COURT: April 7, 2009
REVERSED BY DELAWARE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS: May 14, 2009