Case Ref: FS50082420
Date: 30/07/2007
Public Authority: Valuation Office Agency
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning the number of complaints made against an individual employee of the public authority. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held in the belief that this would constitute a disclosure of personal data that would contravene the first data protection principle. The Commissioner finds that the public authority was correct in refusing to confirm or deny that the requested information was held, but that the refusal notice issued by the public authority was inadequate. Although the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Act in its refusal notice, this breach does not necessitate remedial action. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50082420
Case Ref: FS50090383
Date: 30/07/2007
Public Authority: The Vale of Glamorgan Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of an internal audit report prepared by the public authority. The request was initially refused by the public authority, citing the exemptions at sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Act. In its response to a request for internal review, the public authority released some information but stated that, in addition to the exemptions already cited, the information was also exempt by virtue of the section 30(2) exemption. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority also claimed that the exemption at section 44 of the Act applied, because schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) acted as a statutory bar for disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions at sections 30, 40, 41 and 44 have been applied inappropriately. In terms of the section 42 exemption, the Commissioner’s decision is that it has been applied appropriately only in a small number of instances. Accordingly, the Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld, with that information that has been appropriately withheld by virtue of section 42 redacted. The public authority also initially breached the requirements of section 10 and 17(1).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50090383
Case Ref: FS50110885
Date: 30/07/2007
Public Authority: University of Cambridge
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning successful applicants to the public authority, broken down by school or college, gender and course. The public authority provided the majority of the information requested, but withheld information showing less than 5 successful applicants to the same course of the same gender and from the same school or college under section 40(2). The Commissioner finds that the information withheld is personal data, but also finds that disclosure of this material would not breach any of the data protection principles. The public authority is required to disclose the information withheld. The Commissioner also finds that the refusal notice did not fulfil the procedural requirements of section 17, but that this breach does not necessitate remedial action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50110885
Case Ref: FS50086301
Date: 30/07/2007
Public Authority: Surrey Police
Summary: The complainant requested CCTV footage relating to the Amanda Dowler (“Milly Dowler”) murder in 2002 from Surrey Police (the “public authority”). Having refined his request this was reduced specifically to 5 minutes of footage taken from the “Birdseye CCTV” camera on the Unilever Building on Station Avenue from 4.05pm to 4.10pm on the day that Milly Dowler went missing. This is believed to cover the last time Milly Dowler was seen. The public authority refused to provide this information citing that the information is exempt under section 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities). The Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority appropriately cited the section 30 exemption and that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Therefore this complaint is not upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50086301
Case Ref: FS50010888
Date: 30/07/2007
Public Authority: NHS Direct
Summary: The complainant sought disclosure of the geographic telephone numbers for NHS Direct. NHS Direct refused to disclose the information on the basis that it was exempt by virtue of section 22 (future publication), section 38 (health and safety) and section 44 (prohibition on disclosure).Following correspondence with the Commissioner it withdrew the application of section 44. Having considered the complaint the Commissioner decided that the information was not exempt under section 22. However he decided that section 38 was engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also concluded that the public authority had breached section 1 of the Act by incorrectly claiming the information was not held and that it had breached the requirements of section 17 of the Act by failing to issue an adequate refusal notice. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 22 – Complaint upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50010888
Case Ref: FS50119364
Date: 31/07/2007
Public Authority: The National Archives
Summary: The National Archives refused to allow the complainant access to the closed parts of a Foreign and Commonwealth Office file relating to arms sales to Saudi Arabia, citing section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner decided that section 27 is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours withholding the information sought (much having already been released). He therefore decided that, in refusing this request, The National Archives had dealt with it in accordance with part I of the Freedom of Information Act. In reaching this decision he followed his decision in an earlier, closely related case (ICO reference FS50111530). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50119364
Case Ref: FS50100892
Date: 30/07/2007
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to the Tribunal Service (an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice) for information about the relationship between the ethnicity of claimants who submitted applications to the Employment Tribunal Service and the outcome of each claimant’s case. The public authority refused the request on the basis that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner has concluded that whilst the public authority did not hold any researched statistics which could have been used to answer the request in full, he believes that the public authority did hold some raw data which fell within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner accepts that to provide this information would have exceeded the appropriate cost limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50100892
Case Ref: FS50081276
Date: 30/07/2007
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the information created as result of his correspondence with the Magistrates’ Court Service Inspectorate concerning the Chester, Ellesmere Port and Neston Magistrates’ Court during the period 2003/2004. The public authority provided the complainant with some information in full, further information in redacted form and withheld the remainder. The public authority explained that the information withheld was exempt under sections 21 and 36. The Commissioner notes that in dealing with the request, the public authority breached sections 10 and 17 of the Act by failing to respond in time and not giving a full explanation. Having investigated the application of the exemptions, the Commissioner is satisfied that the exemptions cited were properly applied and that the information is therefore exempt.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50081276
Case Ref: FS50097810
Date: 30/07/2007
Public Authority: Department for Culture Media and Sport
Summary: The complainant made several requests to the public authority for information relating to ‘listed events’, ie major sporting events subject to special rules on broadcasting coverage. The public authority provided some of the information but withheld other elements, citing the exemptions contained in section 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure, and therefore ordered the DCMS to disclose the withheld information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint upheld. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50097810
Case Ref: FS50089660
Date: 30/07/2007
Public Authority: Coventry City Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to a complaint made about her whilst performing her duties as a councillor. The public authority released some of the information but refused to release the rest on the basis that it was exempt under sections 31 and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). Having considered the relevant provisions of the Act and the submissions received from both parties, the Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority has validly withheld the requested information under section 40(1) of the Act and the Commissioner will now separately assess whether the complainant is entitled to the information under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50089660
Case Ref: FS5086299
Date: 30/07/2007
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant asked the Cabinet Office for minutes, correspondence and any other information about meetings between the Multinational Chairman’s Group and the Prime Minister and his officials. The Cabinet Office provided some of the information but withheld the rest as exempt under sections 35(1)(a) and 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) of the Act, in that it failed to explain adequately which exemption applied to each element of the requested information and why. The Cabinet Office also breached section 17(3) as its refusal notice failed to deal adequately with the reasons for claiming that the public interest in maintaining the exemption under section 35(1)(a) outweighed the public interest in disclosing the requested information. The Commissioner decided that all of the information is exempt under section 35(1)(a) but, in breach of section 1(1), the Cabinet Office failed to disclose some of this information where the public interest in disclosure was not outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption under section 35(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner requires that the Cabinet Office disclose this information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS5086299
Case Ref: FS50133791
Date: 30/07/2007
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary:The complainant asked for the total cost of On the Air, an animated series produced by Flickerpix, and a breakdown of this cost. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis that the information was held for the purposes of journalism art and literature. Having considered the purposes for which this information is held the Commissioner is satisfied that it falls within the scope of the Act but that it is exempt from disclosure under section 43.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50133791
Case Ref: FS50132169
Date: 26/07/2007
Public Authority: City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the Council) relating to a consultation exercise it had carried out on the structure of parish councils. The Council supplied some of the information requested however withheld some of it on the grounds that the section 40 (personal information) exemption applied. The Commissioner has decided that the Council was correct to apply section 40 to some parts of the withheld information, but not to others. As the Council has now provided the complainant with all of the information to which the Commissioner believes he is entitled, it is not required to take any further steps in respect of this complaint. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50132169
Case Ref: FS50112347
Date: 26/07/2007
Public Authority: Commission for Local Administration in England
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Local Government Ombudsman to request information regarding a complaint he had previously made against Herefordshire County Council. The public authority responded by explaining that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 44 of the Act. The public authority said that the relevant statutory prohibition was section 32(2) of the Local Government Act 1974. After considering the complaint the Commissioner has found that the statutory prohibition applied to the majority of information withheld from the complainant. However, the Commissioner has found that the public authority also breached section 1 of the Act because the statutory prohibition did not apply to all of the information that had been withheld.An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50112347
Case Ref: FS50100888
Date: 26/07/2007
Public Authority: Mid Sussex District Council
Summary: The complainant requested access to information held by Mid Sussex District Council (‘the Council’) which led to a specific statement being made by the Strategic Director of the Council. The statement was made in a letter dated 13 May 2005 in response to a complaint the complainant had submitted regarding a planning application. The Council responded and informed the complainant that it was unwilling to release the information, as it considered that it was exempt from disclosure under section 41 of the Act. As he remained dissatisfied, the complainant contacted the Commissioner and requested that the Council’s decision to withhold the information be given formal consideration. The Commissioner reviewed the information requested and concluded that the Council was correct to rely on section 41 of the Act for the non disclosure of the information and therefore dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with section 1 of the Act. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50100888
Case Ref: FS50127657
Date: 26/07/2007
PublicAuthority: Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (an executive agency of the Department for Transport)
Summary: The complainant supplied the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (the “DVLA”) with a list of vehicle registration numbers, together with details of the vehicles models and colours, and asked it to confirm whether Welwyn Hatfield District Council had made “non-fee paying” enquiries in order to obtain the details of the registered vehicle keepers of those vehicles. The DVLA refused to supply this information, citing section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The DVLA claimed that this information was personal data, and that its disclosure would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner decided that the DVLA was correct in its application of section 40(2) and that the information should be withheld. Therefore the Commissioner does not require the DVLA to take any further action in this case.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50127657
Case Ref: FS50154362
Date: 25/07/2007
Public Authority: Transport for London (“TfL”) (acting on behalf of any subsidiary authority)
Summary: The complainant made a request for all information held by the public authority in relation to an investigation which was conducted into alleged irregularities with the public authority’s pension fund. The request was originally refused on the basis of section 21. However, at the internal review the public authority withdrew its reliance on this exemption and instead provided the complainant with a number of documents, although certain documents were redacted on the basis of section 40 and section 42. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority disclosed the information it had redacted on the basis of section 40. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority were correct to rely on section 42 to withhold some information, but breached section 1 of the Act by failing to disclose to the complainant information that it had previously withheld on the basis of section 21.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50154362
Case Ref: FER0123644
Date: 25/07/2007
Public Authority: Milton Keynes Council
Summary: The complainant requested the public authority’s legal advice in relation to two planning applications. The public authority refused to provide this information by citing the exception under Regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner found that this regulation was engaged and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner therefore found that the public authority was correct to withhold the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(5)(B) - Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0123644
Case Ref: FS50124612
Date: 24/07/2007
Public Authority: The Rent Service (TRS) (an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions)
Summary: The complainant requested to be advised as to the then current figures for local reference rents in a specified area in the United Kingdom. TRS declined to release the information relying upon an exemption under section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) indicating that the figures would be contained in an annual valuation report to be published at a later date and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner finds that the public authority was incorrect in its application of section 22 as the figures requested would not be published in the valuation report. The Commissioner therefore orders the public authority to disclose the requested local reference figures for March 2006 to the complainant within 35 calendar days from date of this notice. The Commissioner also finds the TRS in breach of section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 22 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50124612
Case Ref: FS50118129
Date: 24/07/2007
Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
Summary: The complainant requested information related to the investigation of possible insider trading leading up to September 11 2001. The FSA withheld the information under section 44 and section 12. The Commissioner investigated the application of the two exemptions and found that section 44 was engaged and upheld the FSA’s assertion that to provide some of the information would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner found that in failing to inform the complainant of its reliance on section 12 in the refusal notice the FSA was in breach of section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50118129
Case Ref: FS50101616
Date: 24/7/2007
Public Authority: The Parliamentary Commissioner for England
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to request information regarding a complaint he had made to the public authority against the Department for Trade and Industry. The public authority responded to the complaint by explaining that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 44 of the Act. The public authority said that the relevant statutory prohibition was section 11(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. After considering the complaint the Commissioner has found that the statutory prohibition applied to the information that had been withheld from the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority applied section 44 correctly and dealt with the request in accordance with the Act. This decision substitutes that made on the 25 June 2007 in relation to the same complaint due to further evidence being supplied by the public authority.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 - Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50101616
Case Ref: FS50133971
Date: 24/07/2007
Public Authority: Birmingham City Council
Summary: The complainants submitted a request to Birmingham City Council (‘the Council’) for a year-by-year breakdown from 1992 onwards of those Neighbourhood Forums that were members of the Birmingham Association of Neighbourhood Forums. The Council advised the complainants that it does not hold the information requested in the format required, i.e. year-by-year. The Council did, however, provide the complainants with a list of those Neighbourhood Forums that were or had been members of the Birmingham Association of Neighbourhood Forums since 1992. Having considered the information available the Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested by the complainants is not held by the Council. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50133971
Case Ref: FS50131421
Date: 23/07/2007
Public Authority: Hearing Aid Council
Summary: The complainant asked for legal advice obtained by the public authority about specific issues. The public authority declined to disclose the information relying upon the section 42 exemption and claiming that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. Subsequently the public authority claimed that it did not want to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50131421
Case Ref: FS50081575
Date: 23/07/2007
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant sought information from the FCO relating to the death of Iain Hook, a British subject killed while working for the United Nations in Jenin in November 2002. The FCO refused to release the information, citing exemptions 27, 35, 36, 40 and 41, and upheld this decision on review. The Commissioner upheld the decision taken by the FCO in relation to exemptions 40 and 41. In respect of the other exemptions cited, the Commissioner took the view that section 27 was engaged in respect of all the remaining relevant information and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in releasing the information. He did not consider sections 35 and 36.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50081575
Case Ref: FS50079642
Date: 23/07/2007
Public Authority: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Summary: The complainant asked Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) what representations had been made to it about the application of the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) to the New Forest and what replies had been given; specifically, he asked for all correspondence with the New Forest Verderers. The Commissioner decided that the information had been correctly withheld under the exemption arising from section 41 of the Act. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50079642
Case Ref: FS50075271
Date: 23/07/2007
Public Authority: Cranfield University
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning allegations made about the Vice Chancellor of the public authority and the subsequent investigation made into these allegations. The information requested was withheld under sections 36, 40, 41 and 42. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, some information was disclosed to the complainant. In relation to the remainder of the information, the Commissioner finds that sections 36 and 42 have been applied correctly. As sections 40 and 41 were applied to that information the Commissioner has concluded that it should be withheld under section 36, the Commissioner has not formed a conclusion in relation to these exemptions. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 17 when refusing the request, but that this breach does not necessitate remedial action. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50075271
Case Ref: FS50120004
Date: 11/07/2007
Public Authority: North Norfolk District Council
Summary: The complainant requested the Council to release a copy of the legal advice it received in relation to the development of the North Lodge and the North Lodge Park. The Council considered the request and advised the complainant that it felt the information was exempt from disclosure under section 42 of the Act. The complainant remained dissatisfied and approached the Commissioner. After considering the case and the information being withheld, the Commissioner decided that the information was environmental and therefore that the Council should have dealt with the request under the EIR. The Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and claimed that exception 12(5)(b) applied in this case. The Commissioner considered the arguments presented from both parties and concluded that the Council was correct to rely on exception 12(5)(b) and that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosure, despite the presumption in favour of disclosure set out in regulation 12(2) EIR. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50120004
Case Ref: FS50097244
Date: 10/07/2007
Public Authority: Forest Heath District Council
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information relating to a specific planning issue. The public authority withheld it under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (section 42) claiming legal professional privilege and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner found that the requested information should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Nevertheless the claim that the information was subject to legal professional privilege still applied and the information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of regulation 12(5)(b). The complaint was partially upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 – complaint upheld, EIR 12(5)(b) – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50097244
Case Ref: FS50153399
Date: 09/07/2007
Public Authority: Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) regarding the bids it had received when offering a property for sale by informal tender. The Council refused to supply the information on the grounds that to do so would prejudice its commercial interests and that therefore it was exempt under section 43 of the Act. The Council further stated that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner has reviewed the Council’s decision and considers that it has failed to demonstrate how its commercial interests would be prejudiced by disclosing the information requested. The Commissioner therefore requires the Council to provide the withheld information to the complainant within 35 days of the date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint upheld, FOI 1 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50153399
Case Ref: FS50100127
Date: 09/07/2007
Public Authority: British Waterways Marinas Ltd
Summary: The complainant requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) a copy of an objection that had been made to him operating a sailing school from a marina owned and operated by the public authority. The public authority refused to disclose this information, stating that this was due to “commercial confidentiality”. At the start of the investigation the Commissioner established that British Waterways Marinas Ltd was a publicly-owned company, as defined by section 6(1)(b) of the Act, and was therefore a public authority for the purposes of the Act. During the investigation the public authority confirmed to the Commissioner that it believed the disclosure of this information would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). After investigating the complaint the Commissioner was satisfied that the complainant was a sole trader, and that the information in question formed part of his personal data. Therefore the Commissioner decided that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the Act but that the public authority should have treated the request as a subject access request under section 7 of the DPA. The Commissioner also concluded that the public authority breached the requirements of section 17 of the Act by failing to issue an adequate refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50100127
Case Ref: FS50094583
Date: 05/07/2007
Public Authority: The Financial Services Authority
Summary: The complainant requested a report and supporting information regarding Equitable Life as mentioned on the FSA’s website. The FSA disclosed an edited version of the report but withheld the remainder of the information under sections 41, 42, 44 and 43 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated the application of all four exemptions and found that they had all been applied correctly and in relation to sections 42 and 43 that in all circumstances of the case the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50094583
Case Ref: FS50160186
Date: 05/07/2007
Public Authority: Bromesberrow Parish Council
Summary: Bromesberrow Parish Council (the “Council”) received a request for information from two complainants. The complainants requested information concerning a donation the Council had allegedly made to a miners’ memorial, and the reasons why the public were not made aware of this donation. The complainants did not receive a response and so complained, separately, to the Commissioner. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Council confirmed that no such donation had been made and the requested information was therefore not held by the Council. The Council issued a fees notice totalling £560 to the complainants to cover the cost of staff time spent on this matter. The complainants indicated they wished to complain about the fees notices, and so the Commissioner asked to consider both complaints together in determining whether the fees notice was lawful. The Commissioner has concluded that whilst the Council has confirmed that it does not hold the information requested by the complainants, it did so late, and was therefore not entitled to issue a fees notice in respect of the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 9 – Complaint upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50160186
Case Ref: FS50111530
Date: 04/07/2007
Public Authority:The National Archives
Summary: The National Archives refused to allow the complainant access to a closed Foreign and Commonwealth Office file relating to the supply of tanks for the Saudi Arabian National Guard citing section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner decided that in refusing this request, The National Archives had dealt with it in accordance with part I of the Freedom of Information Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50111530
Case Ref: FS50108125
Date: 04/07/2007
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested anonymised information relating to two infringements of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and a letter sent from the Home Office to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Home Office refused to disclosure the information under sections 30, 36, 38 and 44 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated and found that section 30 and 36 were engaged but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure; that section 38 was engaged but that the public interest lay in maintaining the exemption and that section 44 was engaged. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the information withheld under sections 30 and 36 to the complainant within 35 calendar days from date of this notice. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50108125
Case Ref: FS50085777
Date: 04/07/2007
Public Authority: East Hampshire District Council
Summary: The complainant asked the Council for information concerning the job descriptions of employees who had attended particular training courses. The complainant also requested information concerning the Council’s application of the Hay job evaluation process. The Council withheld part of the requested information under section 40 (personal information). It withheld information concerning the Hay job evaluation process under section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner agreed that part of the requested information was exempt under section 40 but decided that the information withheld under section 36 should be released. He also found that the Council had breached section 17 of the Act by its failure to address the public interest test in respect of its application of section 36.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50085777
Case Ref: FS50093052
Date: 04/07/2007
Public Authority: Department of Trade and Industry
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of information about meetings/correspondence between the DTI and the CBI for certain divisions of the DTI. The DTI provided the complainant with some of the information but claimed that the rest of the information was exempt from disclosure under sections 35, 36, 40 and 41 of the Act. Having investigated, the Commissioner does not accept that the public interest in withholding all of the information in respect of section 35 and 36 outweighs the public interest in disclosure and consequently finds that the exemptions were improperly applied to some of the information. Some of the information was, however, correctly withheld under the exemptions at sections 35, 36 and 40. The complaint is therefore partially upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint upheld. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50093052
Case Ref: FS50099396
Date: 03/07/2007
Public Authority: UK Intellectual Property Office (formerly Patent Office)
Summary: The Complainant requested all the information in files relating to his complaint to the Patent Office. The Patent Office disclosed all the information it held apart from one statement. The Patent Office refused to release the statement as it was created solely for the purpose of an inquiry under the Register of Patent Agent Rules 1978 and therefore exempt under section 32(2)(a) Court Records. The Patent Office also stated the information was provided in confidence from the Patent Agent and section 41 of the Act was also engaged. The Commissioner investigated the application of both exemptions and has found that the exemption under section 32(2)(a) is engaged in respect of the information requested and has therefore not investigated the application of section 41. The Commissioner finds that the Patent Office dealt with the request in accordance with the requirements of Part 1 of the Act and therefore requires no steps to be taken. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 32 – Complaint not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50099396
Case Ref: FS50137769
Date: 03/07/2007
Public Authority: Pembrokeshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested details of complaints made to the public authority against his client and the names of those who made the complaints. The public authority refused the request, citing section 41 of the Act (information provided in confidence). During the course of the investigation the complainant stated that he wanted the names of the individuals who had made the complaints and was no longer interested in receiving the details of those complaints. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority applied the Act appropriately in withholding the names by virtue of section 41 of the Act. Furthermore, the Commissioner considers that the names of the individuals could have been withheld by virtue of the section 40 exemption (personal information).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50137769
Case Ref: FS50068023
Date: 03/07/2007
Public Authority: Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (‘HMRC’)
Summary: The Commissioner has determined that HMCE failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) of the Act as it did not explain to the complainant that it did not hold sales data broken down month by month as requested. In addition, HMCE failed to explain why the public interest favoured maintaining the exemptions cited in its Refusal Notice, in breach of section 17(3) of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that a limited amount of information within the scope of the request was not exempt by virtue of section 44 of the Act. Therefore in failing to supply that limited material to the complainant HMCE breached section 1(1)(b) of the Act. However, the Commissioner has not ordered any steps in this regard as this information is publicly available in the Treasury Minutes on the First to Third Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 2002-2003 mentioned in the body of this decision notice. The Commissioner also considers that the remainder of the material sought by the complaint is exempt by virtue of section 44 and therefore HMCE appropriately refused to provide that information to the complainant on the basis that it was not under an obligation to supply under section 1(1)(b).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50068023
Case Ref: FER0082136
Date: 03/07/2007
Public Authority: Dover District Council
Summary: The complainant requested legal advice received by the public authority. The public authority applied section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act to withhold the information. The Commissioner found that the request should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. He considered that the exception under regulation 12(5)(b) of those Regulations did not apply as legal professional privilege had been waived due to the public authority publishing a summary of the legal advice in a report available on its website. Since regulation 12(5)(b) was not engaged, there was no need for the Commissioner to consider the public interest test under regulation 12(1)(b) of the Regulations. Therefore, the Commissioner ordered the public authority to disclose the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5(1) – Complaint upheld, EIR 12(5)(b) – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0082136
Case Ref: FER0081580
Date: 03/07/2007
Public Authority: City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of Counsel’s advice that the authority had obtained in relation to a planning application and the documents that the authority had provided Counsel with the instructions. The authority refused to supply the complainant with the information citing section 42 of the Act, legal professional privilege. The authority did however, refer the complainant to a summary of the advice that it had circulated. The Commissioner finds that the information requested falls within the definition of environmental information and so is dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. In this case, there is no difference in outcome resulting from the application of the Regulations as opposed to the Act. The Commissioner also finds that by referencing the advice received from Counsel in the publicly available summary, the authority have waived privilege and the relevant exception, 12(5)(b), is therefore, not engaged. Furthermore, the enclosures are separate, discrete documents and are not just part of the instructions and so again, the exception is not engaged. The authority is required to provide the complainant with the information requested.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5(1) – Complaint upheld, EIR 12(5)(b) – Complaint upheld, EIR 14(3)(b) – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0081580
Case Ref: FS50090866
Date: 02/07/2007
Public Authority: Waverley Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested the Council to provide a copy of a proposed lease between the Council and the developers which concerned the site of the bowling club and that was attached to a conditional contract between the two parties. The Council responded to the complainant’s request advising him that it was unwilling to release this information citing section 43 of the Act. As the complainant remained dissatisfied with this decision he asked the Commissioner to consider his case and whether the Council had correctly applied this exemption. The Commissioner investigated this matter and concluded that the Council had inappropriately relied on section 43 of the Act for the non-disclosure of this information and had therefore not dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with section 1 of the Act. The Commissioner has therefore requested the Council to release the information requested to the complainant within 35 days of the receipt of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50090866
Case Ref: FS50093255
Date: 02/07/2007
Public Authority: Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant and his wife initially requested copies of two incident reports which had been completed by staff members of Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust (the public authority) in 2001, in relation to alleged abusive and aggressive behaviour by the complainant and his wife. The public authority treated this request, and the subsequent request referred to in this Notice, as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). The incident reports were provided to the complainant and his wife in a form which did not show the names of the staff members who had written these reports. The complainant then contacted the public authority again, and asked specifically for the names of the staff members who had written these reports. The public authority refused to disclose the information, and cited the exemption at section 40. At review stage the public authority stated that the information was exempt under section 36. During the investigation of the complaint the public authority informed the Commissioner that it now sought to rely solely upon section 40(2), as it believed that the disclosure of this information would be in breach of the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). After investigating the complaint and considering the withheld information, the Commissioner was satisfied in the circumstances of this case that the information in question formed part of the personal data of the complainant and his wife, and he therefore decided that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the Act. Additionally the Commissioner found that section 36 was not engaged as the public authority had not sought the reasonable opinion of the qualified person. The Commissioner also concluded that the public authority had breached the requirements of section 17 of the Act by failing to issue an adequate refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI – 17 Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50093255
Case Ref: FS50147950
Date: 02/07/2007
Public Authority: Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the dates of communications between a specific officer of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (the “PHSO”) and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The PHSO refused the request on the grounds that it was vexatious. The PHSO stated that the request served no purpose or value and that the cost and time they would be required to spend in order to comply with the request would impose a significant burden. The Commissioner finds that the request was incorrectly refused as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act and that the PHSO failed to comply with section 1(1) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that, in their handling of the request, the PHSO did not breach section 16 of the Act as the duty to advise and assist does not apply where section 14 has been applied. In failing to issue a Refusal Notice within the statutory time limit of twenty working days, the PHSO breached section 17(5). In referring the complainant directly to the Commissioner, the PHSO effectively advised him that no internal review process was available for complaints about the handling of requests for information and in doing so complied with section 17(7) of the Act. During the course of his investigation the Commissioner established that, given the scope of the request, it was likely that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit set out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (the “Fees Regulations”). In an attempt to resolve matters informally the Commissioner asked the PHSO to respond to a refined version of the request which had been submitted to the Commissioner by the complainant. The PHSO agreed to undertake this and, in responding to the complainant’s refined request the Commissioner is satisfied that they have complied with their duties under part I of the Act. Therefore, he has not ordered the PHSO to take any steps. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50147950