expectationlost / working_petitions_scraper_count_1

working petitions scraper count


Forked from ScraperWiki

Contributors expectationlost

This scraper has not yet been run

Data

Downloaded 1 time by MikeRalphson

To download data sign in with GitHub

Download table (as CSV) Download SQLite database (0 Bytes) Use the API

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: 43.1 KB

History