Request for scaled aggregate from UAC (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Lazarus
- Start date
dp624
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,326
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Sure, I'll send this soon.
Is there a similar $30 processing fee?
Or would this (and only this) be the thing I send?
Lol, and I'm scared they might ring my home number asking me stuff. I don't know much, so could I change that line to an email?
Is there a similar $30 processing fee?
Or would this (and only this) be the thing I send?
Lol, and I'm scared they might ring my home number asking me stuff. I don't know much, so could I change that line to an email?
There shouldn't be any processing fee for this one, so it's just the letter.
Good idea to change the phone number to an email - probably better for our purposes anyway.
Then I think it's OK to send.
Don't be surprised if you get back a simple rejection letter saying they don't have any of it - we can only try.
It's not really clear whether the Technical Committee on Scaling carries out its scaling operations at the UAC building or at the University of Sydney. It definitely used to be the latter, but it's possible that it has changed to the former.
Good idea to change the phone number to an email - probably better for our purposes anyway.
Then I think it's OK to send.
Don't be surprised if you get back a simple rejection letter saying they don't have any of it - we can only try.
It's not really clear whether the Technical Committee on Scaling carries out its scaling operations at the UAC building or at the University of Sydney. It definitely used to be the latter, but it's possible that it has changed to the former.
does the Act provide that the organisation must respond within a certain timeframe? even if only "reasonable"?Lazarus said:Oh, it won't matter.
Could be a week, could be longer. They might feel the need to seek legal advice.
Waiting is the worst!
The Act is silent on the timeframe, so I think "reasonable" would be presumed - which could be two or three weeks or even a month given that there is no urgency involved.
Anything longer and their omission to accede to the request is likely to be seen as a breach of the relevant national privacy principle.
Anything longer and their omission to accede to the request is likely to be seen as a breach of the relevant national privacy principle.
Last edited:
This is fantastic. They have absolutely no legs to stand on at all. How fascinating!
David, I need you to think about what you want to do about this.
The options are:
(a) do nothing, let it go;
(b) write to them setting out a comprehensive case as to why the information is not confidential and asking for reconsideration;
(c) complain about the matter to the Privacy Commissioner and request a determination that the information should be released;
(d) both (b) and (c).
If you want to take it further, you won't need to do anything except authorise me to act on your behalf. I am more than happy to do all of the legwork.
It is your decision though and you are obviously entitled to just let it go.
There are no costs involved except the time it takes to write the correspondence.
David, I need you to think about what you want to do about this.
The options are:
(a) do nothing, let it go;
(b) write to them setting out a comprehensive case as to why the information is not confidential and asking for reconsideration;
(c) complain about the matter to the Privacy Commissioner and request a determination that the information should be released;
(d) both (b) and (c).
If you want to take it further, you won't need to do anything except authorise me to act on your behalf. I am more than happy to do all of the legwork.
It is your decision though and you are obviously entitled to just let it go.
There are no costs involved except the time it takes to write the correspondence.
One other thought I had, it might actually be easier to start again with someone who already has their raw marks - obviously there can't be any claim of confidentiality in that situation.
I would have applied myself but I wasn't sure whether they would still have my marks... they only need to keep marks from the last five years. Hrmm. Perhaps it is still worth trying.
Anyway, let me know your thoughts?
I would have applied myself but I wasn't sure whether they would still have my marks... they only need to keep marks from the last five years. Hrmm. Perhaps it is still worth trying.
Anyway, let me know your thoughts?
dp624
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,326
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Hm, yeah, sure, I'll be up for whatever I suppose, as long as it isn't too time consuming. I suppose you have my permission to do what's neccessary (option D seems to be most watertight?)
I read over it, and it seemed a bit weird; my marks are to be held as confidential against me? Haha.
Have fun, go for it =P
I read over it, and it seemed a bit weird; my marks are to be held as confidential against me? Haha.
Have fun, go for it =P
Last edited:
DP -
You would need to give me something in writing - e.g. see attachment.
There are also a few other things I'd need to discuss with you to ensure that no conflicts of interest arise between acting for you in relation to UAC and acting for myself in relation to my side project with the Board.
JC -
I think you should hold off for the moment. Sending another application now probably wouldn't add anything useful. Unless you were to get your raw marks first.
What happened with your FOI application? Did you seek a review or did you let it go?
[comment]blankline[/comment]
You would need to give me something in writing - e.g. see attachment.
There are also a few other things I'd need to discuss with you to ensure that no conflicts of interest arise between acting for you in relation to UAC and acting for myself in relation to my side project with the Board.
JC -
I think you should hold off for the moment. Sending another application now probably wouldn't add anything useful. Unless you were to get your raw marks first.
What happened with your FOI application? Did you seek a review or did you let it go?
[comment]blankline[/comment]