Case Ref: FS50114028
Date: 30/04/2007
Public Authority: Wrexham County Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority relating to the senior employees employed at the Authority. The complainant requested the names of those senior employees that had their principal private residence within the boundary of the council borough and the names of the senior officers that pay council tax in the borough. The public authority initially confirmed the number of senior officers employed, providing details of their name and position within the Authority, and further, provided a breakdown in respect of the numbers living within and outside the County Borough. The Authority refused to confirm the location of the individual’s area of principal residence and sought to rely on sections 40 (2) and (3) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000. The Authority stated that the information requested constituted personal information and that its disclosure would breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner sought evidence to evaluate the Authority’s position and has decided, in this case, the authority applied the Act appropriately by refusing the request by virtue of section 40.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI40 - Complaint not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50114028
Case Ref: FS50084354
Date: 23/04/2007
Public Authority: Privy Council Office
Summary: The public authority (PCO) withheld certain information requested by the complainant relating to the University Visitor, interests declared by Baroness Amos under the Ministerial Code of conduct or otherwise and all details of payments made to senior staff. The Commissioner has decided that there was no obligation to provide the information that was requested about the University Visitor as this information is not held by the public authority for the purposes of the Act. The Commissioner has also decided that the PCO correctly applied the exemption under section 41 (Information provided in confidence) to the declared interests of Baroness Amos that had been withheld from the complainant. However, he has concluded that all information relating to payments made to senior staff should be disclosed, but without reference to individuals. This Decision Notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50084354
Case Ref: FS50087603
Date: 23/04/2007
Public Authority: Rotherham NHS Primary Care Trust
Summary: The complainant and his partner made a series of requests to the public authority under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOI Act”), and complained to the Commissioner about the public authority’s response to two of these requests. The complainant requested the minutes of a meeting that he alleged had taken place between employees of the public authority, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and South Yorkshire Police in October 2002. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information, citing section 40(5). The complainant also requested information pertaining to the identity of the line manager of an employee of the public authority. Although the public authority provided him with information in response to this request, the complainant questioned the accuracy of this information and asked the Commissioner to investigate this. As the FOI Act does not give the Commissoner powers to investigate the quality of information held or provided by a public authority, he did not make a decision on the quality of the information provided. The Commissioner did, however, consider whether the public authority provided the complainant with the information it held in relation to his request, in compliance with section 1. In regard to the first of the requests the Commissioner concluded that section 40(5) did not apply, and that the public authority should have informed the complainant whether it held the information requested or not. In failing to do so, it contravened the requirements of section 1(1)(a) of the FOI Act. In regard to the second request the Commissioner was satisfied that the public authority provided the applicant with the information it held in relation to the information he had requested. However, the Commissioner also found that the public authority did not comply with section 10 of the FOI Act, as it did not respond to these requests within 20 working days. In consequence, the complaint is partially upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Partially Upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50087603
Case Ref: FS50087796
Date: 23/04/2007
Public Authority: Norfolk County Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a report into the Norwich Central Library fire of 1994. The public authority withheld some parts of the report under both sections 36 and 40 of the Act and other parts under section 36 only. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the public authority released the information withheld under section 36 only. The Commissioner found that the public authority was correct to withhold the remaining information under section 40 of the Act and did not therefore consider the application of section 36 in relation to that information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50087796
Case Ref: FS50101105
Date: 23/04/2007
Public Authority: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Summary: The complainant requested information about the tendering process for a research project including the successful submission. The Commissioner found that some of the information that the complainant believed should have been disclosed was not held at the time the request was made or had in fact had been released. Other information had been withheld under section 43.The Commissioner found that the refusal notices issued by the public authority failed to adequately explain the reasons why the exemption was engaged and why the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. This constitutes breaches of section 17. The public authority also failed to provide any of the information which it considered was not exempt within the statutory time limit, this constitutes a breach of the section10. In relation to the small amount of information that was withheld under section 43, the Commissioner found that the information, including that detailing the rates charged for specific elements of the project was not commercially sensitive and so should have been released. This constitutes a beach of section 1.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50101105
Case Ref: FS50125731
Date: 23/04/2007
Public Authority: Privy Council Office
Summary: The complainant requested information on a number of matters in relation to the University Visitor. PCO refused to supply this information on the grounds that it did not hold the information for the purposes of FOI. The Commissioner has decided that PCO was correct to refuse to disclose this information on the basis that it does not hold the information under section 3(2) of the Act and that it responded to the complainant within the timescales set out in section 10 of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Partially Upheld , FOI 3 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50125731
Case Ref: FS50144027
Date: 23/04/2007
Public Authority: General Medical Council
Summary: The complainant requested details of the number of complaints to the General Medical Council against a particular doctor and the dates of those complaints. The request was refused, except for the details of a complaint which had already been disclosed at a public hearing. The public authority claimed that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) as it was the personal data of the doctor in question and that to release the information would breach the data protection principles. The Commissioner found that the exemption contained in section 40 was correctly applied and that therefore the public authority was right to withhold the information requested.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50144027
Case Ref: FS50120313
Date: 19/04/2007
Public Authority: Maidstone and Tumbridge Wells NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested copies of correspondence exchanged between the public authority and the local Coroner’s Office in relation to the death of his wife. The public authority responded to this request but failed to provide all of the information it held within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the Act. The complainant submitted a number of further requests asking for clarification on a number of issues. The public authority responded to all of these requests except the final request citing section 14 as the basis to refuse this request. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority was incorrect to apply section 14 to this request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 32 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50120313
Case Ref: FS50105717
Date: 17/04/2007
Public Authority: Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of an internal report prepared by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health following an investigation into the relationship between some NHS Patients’ Forum members and their support organisation. The request was initially refused under section 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities). The public authority subsequently argued that the report was exempt under sections 31 (law enforcement) and 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner has concluded that sections 31 and 41 were not applicable and that the report should be disclosed to the complainant. In addition, he decided that the public authority had breached section 17(1), as it failed to state in its refusal notice that sections 31 and 41 were applicable to the information, and section 17(7), as it failed to state in its refusal notice whether it had a procedure for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 31 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50105717
Case Ref: FS50111838
Date: 17/04/2007
Public Authority: Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant sought disclosure of a report commissioned by the Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust regarding the standard of clinical practice of a particular surgeon. The public authority initially refused to disclose the report on the basis of the exemptions contained in sections 40 (personal information) and, subsequently, also sought to rely on section 41 (information obtained in confidence) of the Act. The Commissioner upheld the decision of the public authority to withhold the majority of the information in the report on the basis of sections 40 and 41. However, he determined that neither section 40 or 41 were applicable to a part of the report. He also found that the public authority had not complied with section 17(1)(a), as it failed to inform the complainant within 20 working days of receiving his request that it was relying on an exemption in Part II of the Act, nor section 17(1)(b) and (c), as it failed to state in its refusal notice that section 41 was applicable to the information requested nor explain why it applied.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Partially Upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Partially Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50111838
Case Ref: FS50147863
Date: 17/04/2007
Public Authority: Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust
Summary: The complainant, and his wife, requested information about a doctor who had previously worked for the public authority. Specifically he asked whether the doctor had been carrying out a six monthly rotation as part of her training for General Practice, whilst working in Huddersfield Royal Infirmary’s Haematology Department in 2003. The public authority refused to provide this information, claiming that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOI Act”). The public authority confirmed to the Commissioner that it believed the release of this information would be in breach of the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). After considering the submissions of both parties the Commissioner concluded that the release of this information would not be a breach of the DPA, and that therefore section 40(2) was not engaged. The Commissioner also decided that the public authority was in breach of section 17, as the initial refusal notice was inadequate. Consequently, the complaint was upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50147863
Case Ref: FS50129885
Date: 11/04/2007
Public Authority: Commission for Local Administration in England
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a letter which the public authority had received from Wealden District Council in the course of investigating a complaint against this Council. The public authority refused to supply this information because it said that section 32(2) of the Local Government Act 1974 prevented it from disclosing information it had obtained in the course of an investigation. The Commissioner investigated the complaint and is satisfied that section 32(2) of this Act prevents the public authority from disclosing the information requested by the complainant. The Commissioner therefore accepts that the information is exempt under section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FS50129885
Case Ref: FS50126996
Date: 10/04/2007
Public Authority: HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC)
Summary: The complainant requested DTI guidance held by HMRC supporting the withdrawal of the professional trustee measure. HMRC responded to confirm it held information but that it was exempt from disclosure as the documentation was legal advice and so section 42 of the Act, ‘legal professional privilege’, was engaged, and that section 35 ‘formulation of government policy’ also applied to some of the information. HMRC argued that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner investigated HMRC’s application of section 42 and found that the information requested is legal advice and is therefore covered by the exemption and that the public interest does favour maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner found section 42 applied to all the information requested and so did not investigate the application of section 35. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC dealt with the request in accordance with the Act and require no steps to be taken. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal but the Tribunal has ruled on this appeal and dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FS50126996
Case Ref: FS50118044
Date: 10/04/2007
Public Authority: Leeds City Council
Summary: The complainant requested copies of the responses given to a market research exercise undertaken by Swift Research Ltd (“Swift”) on behalf of Leeds City Council (the “Council”). The Council concluded that it did not hold the requested information, as it only asked Swift to provide it with a final report and not the completed questionnaires. The Commissioner found that the questionnaire responses, however not the names and addresses of those asked to complete the survey or the respondents to it, were held by Swift on behalf of the Council. The Commissioner therefore requires the Council to supply the complainant with the questionnaire responses, in such a way that individual respondents may not be identified.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 3 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FS50118044
Case Ref: FS50090632
Date: 10/4/2007
Public Authority: Transport for London (TfL)
Summary: The complainant submitted a number of requests to the public authority between February and June 2005 which mainly focussed on issues relating to the public authority’s pension fund. The complainant alleged that in processing these requests the public authority committed a number of breaches of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated the matter and concluded that the public authority breached section 1 of the Act twice by failing to provide the complainant with information he was entitled to under the Act, breached section 10 by failing to provide requested information within 20 working days and breached section 17 by failing to supply a refusal notice. However, the Commissioner has established that in relation to a number of other requests, TfL did fulfil the duty at section 1 by providing the complainant with all the information it held within 20 working days. The Commissioner has also decided that the public authority was correct to rely on section 14 as a basis to refuse one of the complainant’s later requests.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FS50090632
Case Ref: FS50079972
Date: 04/04/2007
Public Authority: National Archives
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information from case papers relating to an unsolved murder case dating back to 1954. The public authority withheld the information under sections 31, 40(2) and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that the exemption under section 31(1) applied to all of the requested information and that it was therefore not necessary to reach a decision in relation to the public authority’s application of the other exemptions. The Commissioner also decided that in its refusal notice the public authority had failed to address the public interest test properly as required by section 17(3) of the Act, since it had failed to clarify why the exemptions applied to the specific facts of the request or to assess the public interest test in relation to section 31. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal but the Tribunal has ruled on this appeal and dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 31 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50079972
Case Ref: FS50110534
Date: 04/04/2007
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant asked for information contained in communications between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (the”FCO”) and the Foreign Press Association (the “FPA”) and notes of meetings held between those two organisations. The FCO provided some information but the complainant said that this was not what he had requested. Following an internal review further information was provided and, following discussion between the Commissioner and the FCO, more relevant material was identified which the FCO agreed to send to the complainant. The Commissioner found the FCO to be in breach of section 1(1) of the Act and expressed concern at the delay in dealing with the internal review.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50110534
Case Ref: FS50076355
Date: 04/04/2007
Public Authority: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the agendas for meetings of the Green Ministers Committee since its formation in 1997. Defra provided the complainant with a summary of the agendas from 8 June 1998 to 19 June 2001. Defra claimed the rest of the information was exempt from disclosure under section 35 of the Act. Having investigated, the Commissioner accepts that section 35 applies to the information requested. However he does not accept that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information and consequently finds that the exemption was improperly applied. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal but was later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50076355
Case Ref: FS50086783
Date: 04/04/2007
Public Authority: Department for Trade and Industry
Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority about its investigation into his company. The public authority refused to disclose, relying upon section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. As this is an absolute exemption the public authority did not have to consider the public interest test. The Commissioner has considered the exempt information in question and is satisfied that the public authority has applied section 44 correctly.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50086783
Case Ref: FS50086784
Date: 04/04/2007
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence
Summary: The Ministry of Defence refused to provide the complainant with copies of memoranda of understanding dating from 1973 for the supply of armaments and support to the Saudi Arabian armed forces. The Commissioner decided that, in refusing this request, the Ministry of Defence had dealt with it in accordance with Part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, who have ruled that the appeal should be allowed and the decision overturned.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50086784
Case Ref: FS50102256
Date: 03/04/2007
Public Authority: Commission for Local Administration in England
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Local Government Ombudsman to request any information it held related to her and her interests. In response the public authority provided the complainant with the majority of the information it held. However the public authority explained that the information formed part of a complaints file. It said that it was withholding some of this information under section 44 of the Act. The public authority explained that section 32(2) of the Local Government Act 1974 prevented it from disclosing information it had obtained in the course of, or for the purposes of, an investigation. The Commissioner investigated the complaint and is satisfied that section 32(2) of this Act prevents the public authority from disclosing the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner therefore accepts that this information is exempt under section 44 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50102256
Case Ref: FS50146548
Date: 03/04/2007
Public Authority: The Department for Transport
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the business interests of David Mills, the husband of Tessa Jowell MP. The public authority responded to this request stating that it did not hold the requested information, but the complainant disputed this. Following investigations, the Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority does not hold any information covered by the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50146548
Case Ref: FS50098767
Date: 02/04/2007
Public Authority: Forest Heath District Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of legal advice held by the public authority regarding the quorum necessary for a properly constituted meeting of the local Licensing Sub-Committee. The public authority initially declined relying solely upon an exemption under section 42 (“section 42”) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) claiming legal professional privilege and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. Following the Commissioner’s involvement, the public authority also referred to an exemption under section 41 (“section 41”) of the Act stating that the information had been provided in confidence. The Commissioner considers that as the public authority did not itself commission the legal advice and instead obtained it from another public authority, it was wrong to rely upon the section 42 exemption. However, he is satisfied that the public authority was entitled to rely upon the section 41 exemption to withhold the information as the legal advice was shared with it as part of a confidential agreement. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 42 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50098767