expectationlost / working_petitions_scraper_count_1
working petitions scraper count
This scraper has not yet been run
Data
Downloaded
1 time
by
To download data sign in with GitHub
rows 5 / 5
| url | name | refnumber | title | laststatus | submittedby | petitiontext | status1 | status2 | status3 | status4 | status5 | status6 | status7 | status8 | status9 | status10 | status11 | status12 | date1 | date2 | date3 | date4 | date5 | date6 | date7 | date8 | date9 | date10 | date11 | date12 | corpname | published | Received | NonAdmissible | PetitionClosed | ComplianceStandOrder | ConsiderationComm | DeliberationsComm | ReferDeptStakeOmbuds | DecisionComm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kerrigan, Miss Sharon
|
P00034/12
|
Review of decision by Ombudsman in relation to Disadvantaged Areas Scheme application
|
Non-Admissible
|
Individual
|
My application for Disadvantaged Area Scheme Payment in 2008 was rejected on grounds that farm was not enclosed by fencing. My lands were eligible as "mountain type grazings" as per terms and conditions of the 2008 scheme and were exempt from fencing requirement under cross compliance as "unenclosed land". Changes were made in Terms and Conditions of the Scheme in 2009 which exempted only commonage land from fencing requirement in 2009 and Department of Agriculture are retrospectively applying these requirements into the 2008 scheme. I have received no payment since 2008 as Department are treating it the same as fraudulent claim in 2008 where 100% penalty applies for three years following year of "100% over-claim". Since 2009 I have been farming land which is fully enclosed and fenced as is now required. The final letter from Department of Agriculture clearly spells out the reason for rejection as follows, "there is no dispute in that your lands were not fenced, consequently they could not be controlled or maintained as outlined above, therefore they are not eligible for either SPS, DAS or Reps Payments. "He quotes as follows; "All forage areas must be defined by a permanent boundary except in the case of Commonage land. External forage boundaries must be stockproof and appropriate to the farming enterprise." This Quotation is not part of the DAS scheme but is from SPS scheme to which I have not applied for any payment. Each scheme have their own specific conditions and the fencing requirement was introduced in 2009.
|
Received
|
Being Examined For Compliance With Standing Orders
|
Being Examined For Compliance With Standing Orders
|
For Consideration By Committee
|
Decision Of The Committee
|
Decision Of The Committee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2012
|
14 Oct 2012
|
19 Dec 2012
|
19 Dec 2012
|
30 Jan 2013
|
30 Jan 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
19 Feb 2013 12.31.00
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
|
|
O'Dalaigh, Mr Cearbhaill
|
P00033/12
|
The application of the Freedom of Information Acts and the Ombudsman Acts to the Central Bank of Ireland
|
Petition Closed
|
Individual
|
My issue is with teh Central Bank. There is no transparency and are not accountable to any citizen in the state. They do not deal with citizens, there is no Ombudsman or complaints procedure about them. I requested information from them which would advance a case I have against a Financial Provider for multiple breaches of the Consumer Protection Code. The CB will not give the information requested claiming confidentialy this is despite it being a consumer protection issue I have asked for documents in good faith which were denied. I then asked for them under Section 33AK of Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act 2003 (af) if the Bank is satisfied that the disclosure is necessary to protect consumers of relevant financial services or to safeguard the interests of the Bank, or also denied. In part they have a vested interest in not providing these docs as it shows there was no effective oversight by the Financial regulator between 2007-2009. There is no Ombudsman for CB and they are not subject to Freedom of Information Requests. More public scrutiny and accountability will mean they cant sit on their laurels and do nothing. They seem to think they are above approach. They also have cut a deal with NCA that NCA will not make any examination of terms in financial contracts or refer them to high court for scrutiny. (unfair terms in consumer contracts)
|
:Deliberations By Committee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
06 Nov 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
04 Dec 2013 16.07.57
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
O Lorcain, Uasal Jimi
|
P00032/12
|
The unconstitutionality of the unequal treatment of urban and rural dwellers under the Water Services (Amendment) Act 2012 Charges citing Inequality
|
Petition Closed
|
Individual
|
notavailableyet
|
Received
|
Being Examined For Compliance With Standing Orders
|
Non-Admissible
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2012
|
09 Oct 2012
|
10 Oct 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
24 Oct 2012 11.24.12
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Clarke, Mr Pat
|
P00031/12
|
An Board Pleanála's view of planning precedent in local authorities
|
Referral to Department/Stakeholders/Ombudsman
|
Individual
|
The Bord Pleanala mission statement promises an efficient, fair and open appeals process. The public is entitled to expect a fair hearing particularly as it is the only means of appealing questionable decisions within planning authorities (eg. Ombudsman cannot investigate local authority decisions). When an appeal to the board is based on precedence and this precedence is omitted from the inspector’s report and forms no part of the board's decision – then this diminishes the importance of the matter and does not represent a fair and open hearing. It also opens up the real probability of local authorities applying their planning policies in a selective manner in the knowledge that the board will give no consideration to any precedence created. In common law a precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that a court or other judicial body may apply when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. A precedent has a powerful influence in any court of law - and so it should be. In October 2011 the board the Board wrote: "The Board does not impinge on the role of the planning authority and it has no role in monitoring how the planning authority carries out its functions in respect of the planning process or how it implements planning policy." In order to be a fair and open process the board must consider precedence created by local authorities. Not to do so, is to support the unequal treatment of people within planning.
|
Received
|
For Consideration By Committee
|
Decision Of The Committee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2012
|
26 Jun 2013
|
26 Jun 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
27 Jun 2013 15.32.40
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
Keane, Mr. Des
|
P00030/12
|
Discrimination in law against those convicted of capital murder prior to 1990
|
Petition Closed
|
Individual
|
The Courts have decided that Capital Cases that have been commuted prior to 1990 do not amount to a sentence,with the result that this small group of prisoners have no redress to Parole or Remission . In a Judicial review on the 15/4/2011 Justice Hanna stated '' The potential resolution lay outside the courts " The present situation is that this group of prisoners are locked out of the system. Article 40.1 of the Constitution cannot be invoked on equality as there is no similar case to compare with. As you are aware retrospection in Law is not possible so that in itself is a problem. In all past cases brought by these people the courts have clearly stated that they are not serving sentences so the courts wont intervene .In every sense of the word these people need to be given some hope going forward but always mindful of public reaction. Is it right and proper no matter what the offence is to allow these people to go in to old age with no prospect for parole or remission.
|
Received
|
Being Examined For Compliance With Standing Orders
|
For Consideration By Committee
|
Deliberations By Committee
|
Decision Of The Committee
|
Deliberations By Committee
|
Decision Of The Committee
|
Deliberations By Committee
|
Decision Of The Committee
|
|
|
|
14 Sep 2012
|
09 Oct 2012
|
10 Oct 2012
|
13 Feb 2013
|
13 Feb 2013
|
16 Oct 2013
|
16 Oct 2013
|
11 Dec 2013
|
20 Nov 2013
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
09 Dec 2013 17.51.16
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
3
|
Statistics
Total run time: less than 5 seconds
Total cpu time used: less than 5 seconds
Total disk space used: 44.4 KB
History
- Created on morph.io