On 2015-01-25 16:27:40 +0000, Ian Goddard said: > On 25/01/15 16:01, Tickettyboo wrote: >> On 2015-01-25 12:57:21 +0000, Tim Powys-Lybbe said: >> >>> On 25 Jan at 0:04, Tickettyboo <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> <snip for brevity> >>> >>>> You couldn't make this up if you tried. Two days 'after' I downloaded >>>> the will and grant, I finally get the email telling me they are ready >>>> to download. Gosh it makes the price hike of 66% seem almost worth it >>>> for the entertainment value! >>> >>> It sounds to me as if the whole exercise has been done by in-house IT >>> people with no previous experience of running a large database for >>> consumer purposes. >>> >>> If a commercial firm had been involved, it would presumably have been >>> put out for tender Did anyone see any such thing. >>> >>> In some ways I would congratulate them for attempting a probably >>> low-cost project after the large scale projects that have failed and >>> cost the taxpayers megamillions. >> >> It is a commercial firm, Iron Mountain, http://www.ironmountain.co.uk > > Iron Mountain seem to be the go-to company for storage etc of paper > records. Integration with a public-facing service like this is a > different matter. Not sure how its a different matter. Its still documents, its still digitisation and retrieval. In this case its failing to meet an expected, minimum standard of efficiency. To this little Boo, it 'should' be fine, the principle is the same not matter 'who' originally holds the info/documents ? -- Tickettyboo