The FCO replied on 13 March but again failed to provide the information requested. If the FCO were unable to provide the analysis at that time, Mr R asked when they expected it to be available. Mr R did not receive a reply and he therefore re-sent the letter to the FCO on 9 October. The FCO replied on 1 November but again failed to provide the information requested. Mr R wrote again to the then Minister for Europe on 26 January 2001 and repeated his request for information, but the FCO did not reply.
Saving of money in any of the process can only be possible if an individual properly understands a process and along with it also takes proper working measures as it has been decided by the building inspector all the needs and requirements of the individuals can be fully resolved and along with it their actual purpose of getting into it also gets fully seen in the entire process to suit the wishes and necessities of the persons that have been getting into the process of Home Inspection Checklist.
Before considering the substantive matter of the information requested by Mr R, I shall look first at how the Treasury and the FCO handled that request. He also made it clear that he wanted to know if the Treasury and/or the FCO has not conducted any such analysis. The response by both departments to this request was unhelpful, inadequate and incompatible with the terms of the Code.
Mr R wrote to the Treasury, requesting the same information, on ten separate occasions over the course of almost two years (paragraphs 6.3 to 6.7). He also sought that same information in five separate letters to the FCO over the course of sixteen months (paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9). However, despite the apparent clarity of Mr R’s request, the Treasury and the FCO not only failed to provide the information requested but provided other information that he did not want and had not requested.