Case Ref: FS50085775
Date: 29/10/2007
Public Authority: Scotland Office
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information about proposals to establish a dedicated Gaelic television channel. The public authority withheld the information citing the exemptions in sections 21(1), 35(1)(a), (b) and (c), 40(2)(a), 41(1)(a) and (b), and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). Following an internal review it released some information on the grounds that the public interest now favoured disclosure. The Commissioner decided that, in explaining the public interest test, the public authority had breached section 17(3) by: failing to explain how the general factors identified applied to the specific information requested in this case; inadequately weighing up against each other the factors in favour and against disclosure; and applying an incorrect balance test. Finally, the Commissioner decided that, while some of the withheld information was exempt, the Scotland Office had inappropriately withheld other parts of it by reference to sections 35, 40, 41 and 43, and that this amounted to a breach of section1(1). The Commissioner required the Scotland Office to disclose the information unjustifiably withheld. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 - Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50085775
Case Ref: FS50137020
Date: 29/10/2007
Public Authority: Police Service of Northern Ireland
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (the ‘PSNI’) relating to its policy on shotgun licensing. The PSNI released some information to the complainant, and released further information both before and after the Commissioner’s intervention. However, the Commissioner was concerned that the PSNI had incorrectly applied the exemption under section 38 (health and safety) to some of the information, and had not conducted an adequate public interest test. The Commissioner found that the PSNI had correctly applied the exemption under section 40(2) of the Act to some personal information identifying junior staff, but that the PSNI should release personal information identifying more senior staff. In addition the Commissioner found that the PSNI failed to respond within the statutory time limit, and failed to conduct an internal review. The Commissioner requires the PSNI to release some of the withheld information to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50137020
Case Ref: FS50109533
Date: 29/10/2007
Public Authority: London Borough of Camden
Summary: The complainant requested the Council to disclose a list of all shops and premises visited by bailiffs during 2000 and November 2005 for the collection of rent debts and council taxes. In addition the complainant requested the Council to release a copy of the instructions sent to bailiffs for the collection of these debts. The Council responded to the complainant’s request and refused to disclose this information, citing sections 40 and 43 of the Act. As the complainant remained dissatisfied, he referred the matter to the Commissioner for consideration. The Commissioner considered the requested information and the Council’s application of the exemptions cited and concluded in this case that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under section 43 of Act. The Commissioner is also satisfied the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Accordingly, he has not considered the Council’s application of section 40 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50109533
Case Ref: FS50129683
Date: 29/10/2007
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant requested information about the cost of providing Mrs Blair with the use of an official car including the actual cost of the car. The Cabinet Office withheld some of the information under section 38 of the Act, supplied some information and found that some of the remainder of the requested information was not held. The Commissioner investigated the application of section 38 and considered whether any additional information was held by the Cabinet Office. The Commissioner finds that the Cabinet Office has misinterpreted part of the complainant’s request and therefore not dealt with the request in accordance with the requirements of part 1 of the Act. The Commissioner also finds that section 38 is engaged and that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to respond to the complainant’s request which it has not yet addressed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50129683
Case Ref: FS50087614
Date: 29/10/2007
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information relating to freedom of information requests which had been referred to it by the Clearing House at the Department for Constitutional Affairs (now the Ministry of Justice): the name of its case management system, and specific details about all requests referred since 1 January 2005. He expressed a preference for the information in digital form. The public authority provided information relating to the first part of the request. In relation to the second, it confirmed that it had some of the information but was withholding it by virtue of the exemption contained in section 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). It reiterated this decision at internal review. The complainant complained to the Commissioner about the public authority’s decision and delay. The Commissioner decided that most of the withheld information did not engage section 36 and that the balance of the public interest test favoured disclosure of the remainder. He also decided that the public authority had breached section 17(1) by exceeding the statutory time limit for responding to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50087614
Case Ref: FS50106206
Date: 25/10/2007
Public Authority: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Summary: The complainant, on 15 March 2005, requested information from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (“the Department”) in relation to the farm upon which she and her family live and which she and her family run as a business. The Department withheld the information on the basis that it is exempt under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) in that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is environmental information and so falls to be considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the “EIR”). The Commissioner is satisfied that all of the information is excepted from disclosure under regulation 5(3) of the EIR because the information constitutes personal data of which the complainant is the data subject.
The Commissioner finds that the Department has not dealt with the complainant's request in accordance with Part 1 of the Act in that it has incorrectly applied the exemption under section 12 of the Act and has failed to consider the information under the EIR and that the Department has failed to comply with regulation 5 of the EIR and in particular has failed to apply regulation 5(3) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50106206
Case Ref: FS50147944
Date: 23/10/2007
Public Authority: The Office for National Statistics
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Office for National Statistics (‘the ONS’) relating to the 1921 census return. The ONS withheld the requested information, relying on the exemptions under sections 40(2), 41 and 44 of the Freedom of Information Act. In this case, the Commissioner’s decision is that the ONS has correctly applied the section 44 exemption. The Commissioner does not therefore require the ONS to take any steps in relation to this request. However, the Commissioner also finds that the ONS failed to comply with section 10(1) of the Act as it did not respond promptly to the complainant’s request. The ONS also breached section 17(7) of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with adequate details concerning the right to appeal to the Commissioner. Finally, the Commissioner finds that the ONS failed to meet the requirements of the section 45 Code of Practice in relation to its internal review in this case. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50147944
Case Ref: FS50162201
Date: 16/10/2007
Public Authority: Sussex Police
Summary: The complainant made five information requests to the public authority. One file was ultimately deemed to be exempt under Section 40(1) by the public authority and it claimed not to hold the other information. The Commissioner investigated whether he agreed with the use of the Section 40(1) exemption regarding this request, and then considered whether it was the most applicable exemption for all of the requested pieces of information. He has concluded that the section 40(1) exemption did or would have applied to all of the information. He further concluded that the public authority was not in fact obliged to comply with 1(1)(a) in this regard by virtue of section 40(5).
In failing to inform the complainant that section 40(5) applied the public authority breached section 17(1) of the Act. However the Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps in the light of the contents of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50162201
Case Ref: FS50150314
Date: 16/10/2007
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for the audio record of a court hearing in which he had been a party. The public authority withheld the information on the basis of sections 32 and 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that neither section was engaged and that the public authority should therefore disclose the requested information to the complainant. He also decided that the public authority had delayed in providing the complainant with its refusal notice, in breach of breach of section 17(1) of the Act, and also in providing its internal review decision. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50150314
Case Ref: FS50118883
Date: 16/10/2007
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant, through his solicitors, asked the public authority for the audio record of his trial. The public authority withheld the information on the basis of sections 32 and 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that neither section was engaged and that the public authority should therefore disclose the requested information to the complainant. He also decided that the public authority had delayed in providing the complainant with its refusal notice, in breach of section 17(1) of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint upheld, FOI 32 - Complaint upheld - FOI 21 Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50118883
Case Ref: FS50156208
Date: 16/10/2007
Public Authority: Independent Police Complaints Commission (‘the public authority’)
Summary: The complainant asked for information from three complaint files. The files held by the public authority related to complaints he had made about another public authority. The third file recorded information about two different complaints. The public authority interpreted the request narrowly and did not consider access to the third file until after the Commissioner began his investigation. However, as the IPCC later considered access and cited section 40(1) in respect of the information on that file, the Commissioner considered the application of that exemption. He has concluded that the section 40(1) exemption did apply. He further concluded that the public authority was not in fact obliged to comply with 1(1)(a) in this regard by virtue of section 40(5).
The Commissioner also decided that the information on the two 2000 files would constitute the complainant’s personal data if it were held. Therefore the public authority was not obliged to comply with section 1(1)(a) in that regard by virtue of section 40(5). In failing to inform the complainant that section 40(5) applied the public authority breached section 17(1) of the Act. However the Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps in the light of the contents of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50156208
Case Ref: FS50102436
Date: 16/10/2007
Public Authority: The Commission for Equality and Human Rights
Summary: The complainant submitted a request for information about the ethnicity of claimants 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 requested information. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority did hold some information which fell within the scope of the complainant’s request and by failing to confirm that it held this information it breached section 1 of the Act. However, the Commissioner accepts that to provide this information would have exceeded the appropriate cost limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50102436
Case Ref: FS50070467
Date: 16/10/2007
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary: The complainant requested details of the gross remuneration paid to the 20 highest paid ‘entertainers’ on the BBC for the previous three years. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis it was held for the purposes of journalism, art and literature. The BBC also explained that even if this request fell within the scope of the Act, it would need to clarify with the complainant what he meant by the phrase ‘entertainer’ as it was not a term used by the BBC. Having considered the purposes for which the information is held the Commissioner is satisfied that it falls within the scope of the Act. Consequently, the Commissioner has decided that the BBC should contact the complainant in order to clarify his request in line with its duty under section 16 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 16 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50070467
Case Ref: FER0082566
Date: 11/10/2007
Public Authority: Pesticides Safety Directorate (an executive agency of DEFRA)
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the advice provided by the PSD to Ministers following PSD’s analysis and consideration of all the submissions made during a public consultation into various issues surrounding crop spraying, the consultation meeting having taken place on 30 March 2004. The PSD provided the applicant with a copy of the annexes to the advice which mainly consisted of statistical information but refused to provide the advice itself. The PSD claimed that the information was exempt from disclosure under the exception at Regulation 12(4)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations. Having investigated, the Commissioner accepts that the exception at 12(4)(e) is engaged but does not accept that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information and consequently finds that the exception was incorrectly applied.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12 (4)(e)- Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0082566
Case Ref: FER0086785
Date: 10/10/2007
Public Authority: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information in relation to the public authority’s investigation of a possible breach of planning control. The public authority refused the request by applying sections 30 and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner found that the request should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR). The public authority subsequently confirmed to the Commissioner that the withheld information in relation to three elements of the request was no longer held, but withheld the information in relation to the fourth element of the request by applying regulations 12(5)(f) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner found that the information was not held in relation to the first three elements of the request and that regulations 12(5)(f) and 13 can not be applied to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner therefore requires the remaining information to be released.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 - Complaint upheld, EIR 12 (5)(f) - Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 - Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0086785
Case Ref: FS50083358
Date: 10/10/2007
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of an official speedmeter handbook and also a copy of the associated approved setup manual. The Home Office (the “public authority”) informed the complainant that he had already been supplied with the former document but refused the latter document claiming that the information was exempt from disclosure under sections 41 and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”). After conducting an internal review, the public authority later varied this to section 43 only. In further correspondence with the Commissioner the public authority sought to re-introduce section 41 and also section 31(1)(a) and (b). After considering the submissions of both parties the Commissioner concluded that none of the exemptions cited had been appropriately applied and that therefore the public authority was in breach of section 1(1) of the Act. Consequently, the complaint is upheld and the Commissioner has ordered the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50083358
Case Ref: FS50112042
Date: 10/10/2007
Public Authority: Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police
Summary: The public authority initially refused the information request as vexatious. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the public authority altered its stance and refused the information request under section 12, on the grounds that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit of £450. The Commissioner finds that the public authority failed to comply with the Act initially in that it inappropriately refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority has complied with the Act in that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the cost limit, but further finds that the public authority failed to comply with the Act in that it did not cite the cost limit when initially refusing the request and that it failed to provide advice and assistance. Although the public authority has breached the Act, the nature of these breaches means that remedial action is not necessary.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50112042
Case Ref: FS50085372
Date: 9/10/2007
Public Authority: Department for Culture, Media & Sport
Summary: The public authority refused the complainant’s information request on the grounds of cost. The Commissioner finds that the public authority estimated the cost of complying with the request correctly but failed to comply with section 10 of the Act in that it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50085372
Case Ref: FS50122016
Date: 08/10/2007
Public Authority: London Borough of Camden
Summary: The complainant made a series of requests to the London Borough of Camden (“the Council”) about the work of its Central Complaints Unit (“the CCU”). The Council refused some of the requests under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) on the basis that to respond would exceed the cost limit and also under section 14 of the Act on the basis that the requests were considered by the Council to be repeated and vexatious. The Commissioner investigated and was satisfied that the Council had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the requests had been correctly refused as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act and he therefore did not consider the other exclusions. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the information tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50122016
Case Ref: FER0125285
Date: 08/10/2007
Public Authority: Gloucestershire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested minutes of meetings between the National Trust (“the Trust”) and Gloucestershire County Council (“the Council”) regarding the extent of highway rights over land which had been traditionally managed or owned by the Trust. The Council refused the requests under regulation 12(5)(f) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) considered the arguments proposed by the Council for the application of the exception and is of the view that disclosure of information relating to issues which had not been resolved by the Joint Liaison Committee (“the JLC”) between the Trust and the Council when the requests were made would have adversely affected the interests of the Trust and the public interest favoured withholding that information. The Commissioner also found however that there was other information which could have been disclosed to the complainant at the time of the requests without adversely affecting the Trust’s interests because the information related to issues which had by then been resolved. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information should be disclosed to the complainant within 35 days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 - Complaint upheld, EIR 12(5)(f) - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 (2)- Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0125285
Case Ref: FS50147860
Date: 08/10/2007
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary: The complainant requested from the BBC ‘the 10 largest annual claims for expenses by BBC broadcasters in the latest year for which figures are available’. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis it was held for the purposes of journalism, art and literature. The BBC also explained that even if this request fell within the scope of the Act, it would need to clarify with the complainant what he meant by the term broadcaster. Having considered the purposes for which the information is held the Commissioner is satisfied that it falls within the scope of the Act. Consequently, the Commissioner has decided that the BBC should contact the complainant in order to clarify his request in line with its duty under section 16 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 16 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50147860
Case Ref: FS50070468
Date: 08/10/2007
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary: The complainant requested details of the BBC’s financial agreement with Gary Lineker, including details of his gross remuneration, for the past three years. 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 has concluded that the requested information was not held for the dominant purposes of journalism, art and literature and therefore the request falls within the scope of the Act. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 40 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50070468
Case Ref: FS50070466
Date: 8/10/2007
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary: The complainant requested details of the BBC’s financial agreement with Michael Parkinson, including details of his gross remuneration, for the past three years. 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 has concluded that the requested information was not held for the dominant purposes of journalism, art and literature and therefore the request falls within the scope of the Act. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 40 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50070466
Case Ref: FS50074344
Date: 04/10/2007
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary: The complainant requested a breakdown of the average viewing figures of every BBC Wales generated programme during 2004. The BBC refused to disclose the requested information on the basis that it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner disagrees with this position finding that the requested information is held for purposes other than journalism, art and literature. However he has considered whether the information is exempt from disclosure for other reasons and finds that section 43 of the Act is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption from disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50074344
Case Ref: FS50147333
Date: 03/10/2007
Public Authority: Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Summary: The complainant asked DBERR for information concerning its response to his complaint about the activities of a named company, including internal correspondence and communications with other public authorities. DBERR refused to provide the information it held, citing the section 30 exemption of the Act. The Commissioner found that the exemption was engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner therefore found that DBERR had acted correctly in withholding the information. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2007/0114 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50147333
Case Ref: FER0155651
Date: 02/10/2007
Public Authority: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
Summary: The complainant made two requests for information in relation to a planning dispute with his neighbour. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has provided all the information it holds on the following elements of the requests: a letter from the public authority to the Local Government Ombudsman (the LGO); an internal memorandum; an alleged tape recording; and an alleged threat against the complainant’s neighbour. However, the letter to the LGO, the internal memorandum and the information on the alleged threat were not provided within 20 working days. The public authority initially informed the complainant that it was withholding a second memorandum under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner has considered that this request should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR) and that regulation 12(5)(b) can be applied to withhold the information. Due to the similarities between this exception and section 42 of the Act, the Commissioner does not require the public authority to inform the complainant of the specific reason for withholding the information under the EIR. The Commissioner has found that the remaining elements of the requests should have been dealt with as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act and the public authority has subsequently written to the complainant in response to that subject access request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint not upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint upheld, EIR 5(1) - Complaint not upheld, EIR 5(2) - Complaint upheld, EIR 12(5)(b) - Complaint not upheld, EIR 14 - Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0155651
Case Ref: FS50077877
Date: 01/10/2007
Public Authority: South Tyneside Council
Summary: The complainant asked the Council for information which it held about the Tyne and Wear Anti-Fascist Association (“TWAFA”). In its response the Council provided to the complainant most of the requested information, but redacted the names and contact details of TWAFA staff and organisations associated with it. In doing so, the Council cited the exemptions contained in sections 38(1)(a) and (b), and section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (“the Act”). The Council also withheld four internal emails which it considered to be exempt under section 36 of the Act. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Council identified further relevant information, which it later provided to the complainant after redacting the personal details of TWAFA staff. The Commissioner has decided that sections 36, 38 and 40 are engaged, and that the public interest lies in favour of maintaining the exemptions. However, he has concluded that the Council failed to comply with section 1(1) of the Act as the complainant was not informed of all information held about TWAFA until a further search was carried out at the request of the Commissioner.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50077877
Case Ref: FS50102206
Date: 01/10/2007
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary: The complainant asked the BBC for details of the estimated value of prizes given out in competitions run by BBC Wales Radio/Television and a breakdown of this figure - to include the total amount handed out in cash and detailed examples of the range of prizes. The complainant also asked if BBC Wales has an annual budget for prizes and, if so, what it was in 2004 and 2005. The BBC refused to provide this information stating that it was not a public authority in relation to the complainant’s request because the requested information was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature within the meaning set out in Schedule 1, Part VI of the Freedom of Information Act (“Schedule 1”). As an alternative argument the BBC has applied the exemption under section 43 (Commercial interests) to withhold the information from the complainant. After careful evaluation of the nature of the request, the submissions of both parties, and the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commissioner’s decision is that the information is held for purposes other than journalism art and literature and had therefore failed to deal with the complainants request in accordance with Part 1 of the Act. He also finds that the exemption under section 43 was not engaged. The complaint has been upheld and the Commissioner requires that this information is provided to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50102206