Case Ref: FS50142321
Date: 19/12/2007
Public Authority: Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC)
Summary: The complainant requested details of items seized by HMRC at Bristol airport, Avonmouth and Portbury docks for the financial years 2004/05 and 2005/06. HMRC refused to disclose this information because it considered it to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime). Having reviewed the withheld information the Commissioner has decided that HMRC appropriately relied upon section 31 when refusing the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50142321
Case Ref: FS50081722
Date: 19/12/2007
Public Authority: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC)
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of information provided to the public authority by named personal representatives of the estate of an individual who died on 2 May 1991. In particular, the complainant requested a copy of the HMRC Account for the estate, and copies of corrective accounts that had been filed by the personal representatives. The public authority refused to disclose the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption provided in section 40 of the Act applied to prohibit disclosure of the requested information.
The Commissioner has also decided that the public authority did not comply with section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50081722
Case Ref: FS50145322
Date: 19/12/2007
Public Authority: The Chief Officer of West Yorkshire Police
Summary: The complainant is seeking information that he asserts was provided to third parties in relation to cases that he was involved in during the 1970s and 1980s and which he believes is held by West Yorkshire Police. The Commissioner understands that these cases related to a number of employment issues and an allegation of theft. The public authority provided some information to the complainant and denied holding anything else of relevance. It explained to him that it was likely that any information held would have been destroyed. The complainant does not accept that the police destroyed the information and has corresponded with the police about this matter over a number of years. Contained in his correspondence are a number of subsequent requests which have been made to challenge the police’s position. The Commissioner has determined that the public authority was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held information by virtue of section 40(5). This is on the basis that, if held, the information would constitute the complainant’s personal data and would be exempt under section 40(1). In failing to advise the complainant of this or to respond within the twenty working day timescale the public authority failed to comply with the requirements of section 17(1). The Commissioner considers that the public authority should have treated the request as a subject access request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. He will now go on to make a separate assessment under section 42 of that Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50145322
Case Ref: FS50148098
Date: 19/12/2007
Public Authority: The Charity Commission
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Charity Commission ("the public authority") seeking a copy of a draft report produced by the Independent Complaints Reviewer (the ICR) into complaints concerning the public authority. Those complaints related to its handling of an application made by the complainant for a declaration of charitable status. The public authority refused the request as it considered that the information contained in the draft report was exempt under section 41 of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the public authority has correctly applied the section 41 exemption in this case. However, the Commissioner finds that the public authority delayed in responding to the request and therefore has breached sections 10 and 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50148098
Case Ref: FS50154913
Date: 18/12/2007
Public Authority: Northern Ireland Office
Summary: The complainant requested information about communications between the Northern Ireland Office (the ‘NIO’) and Maybin Support Services NI Ltd (‘Maybin’), since renamed “Resource”. The NIO released some information in response to the request, and released further information following the Commissioner’s intervention, but withheld the remainder. The NIO initially relied on the exemptions under sections 40(2), 42 and 43(1), but during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the NIO withdrew reliance on section 42 and claimed reliance on sections 31(1)(b), 38(1) and 36(2)(c). As a result of the complainant narrowing the scope of his request, the Commissioner’s decision relates solely to the information withheld under sections 31(1)(b) and 43(1). This includes information relating to a tender exercise run by the NIO, and information relating to Maybin’s security licence.
The Commissioner finds that the exemption under section 31(1)(b) is not engaged. The Commissioner finds that the NIO had correctly applied the exemption under section 43(1) to all of the withheld information, but that the public interest lay in disclosing some of the information rather than maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner therefore requires the NIO to release some of the withheld information to the complainant.
The Commissioner also found that the NIO failed to respond within the statutory time limit, and so breached section 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50154913
Case Ref: FS50152083
Date: 18/12/2007
Public Authority: National Patient Safety Agency
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a report regarding a critical incident which occurred at a Paediatric High Dependency Unit on 07 January 2003 and copies of similar incidents reported to the public authority between 2000 and 2003. The public authority responded in accordance with its duty under section 1 of the Freedom of Information and denied it held the information requested. After considering the case the Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested is not held by the public authority and that the request was dealt with in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the Act. 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 FS50152083
Case Ref: FS50074144
Date: 18/12/2007
Public Authority: Jobcentre Plus (an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions)
Summary: The complainant requested the number of complaints received by Jobcentre Plus, an executive agency of the public authority, against a specifically named doctor. The doctor was engaged by the public authority via an outsource contractor to assess health for the purposes of considering eligibility for Disability Living Allowance. The public authority originally cited section 40. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the public authority sought to rely on section 3(2) of the Act, stating that complaints information is not held by it for the purposes of the Act as it is held by the contractor as part of its role as an employer. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information, if held, would be held on behalf of the public authority in accordance with section 3(2) but the public authority should not confirm or deny whether it is held as section 40(5) applies.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 3 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50074144
Case Ref: FS50145988
Date: 18/12/2007
Public Authority: Housing Corporation
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Housing Corporation, principally letters from a named firm of solicitors acting for a housing association, which the Housing Corporation refused to disclose, citing the section 41 exemption under the Act. The complainant had delayed for almost a year before putting his complaint to the Commissioner. The Commissioner decided that, while there had been delay, in the circumstances of the case the interests of justice were best served by his considering the complaint about information in the letters to the Corporation from the housing association’s solicitors. Having done so, he decided that the Housing Corporation had acted correctly in withholding the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50145988
Case Ref: FS50122063
Date: 18/12/2007
Public Authority: Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Summary: The complainant requested details of the quantity of drugs seized by HMRC in Devon and Cornwall for each year for the period 2001 to 2005. HMRC refused to disclose this information because it considered it to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime). Having reviewed the withheld information the Commissioner has decided that HMRC appropriately relied upon section 31 when refusing the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50122063
Case Ref: FS50176919
Date: 17/12/2007
Public Authority: The Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (the ‘Assembly Ombudsman’) to request copies of correspondence between that office and the Northern Ireland Water Service in relation to water meters and water wastage. The Assembly Ombudsman claimed that the information it held was exempt under section 44 of the Act which provides for an exemption where disclosure is prohibited under any other enactment. The relevant statutory prohibition is the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The Information Commissioner has considered the complaint and has found that the information was exempt and that the Assembly Ombudsman applied section 44 of the Act correctly.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50176919
Case Ref: FS50163705
Date: 13/12/2007
Public Authority: Walsall NHS Teaching PCT
Summary: The complainant initially made a request to view the medical records of a deceased person. This request was dealt with under the Access to Health Records Act 1990 and the public authority refused to provide the information. The complainant made a second request asking for full access to the records held by the Trust about the deceased person. The public authority declined to disclose the information relying upon the section 41 exemption. In not dealing with the initial request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 the public authority did not issue an adequate refusal notice and therefore breached section 17. However the Commissioner has concluded that the information was exempt by virtue of section 41 exemption. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50163705
Case Ref: FS50142679
Date: 05/12/2007
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the legal advice held by the public authority following a public consultation into proposed new legislation. The public authority refused to confirm or deny that any legal advice was held under sections 42 and 35 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated the application of the exemptions in relation to the neither confirm nor deny response and found that the public authority was correct in its application of section 42. This being the case, the Commissioner did not go on to consider the application of section 35. However, the Commissioner did find that the refusal notice issued in response to the initial request did not meet the requirements of section 17 of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2008/0005 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50142679
Case Ref: FS50083086
Date: 05/12/2007
Public Authority: Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning an investigation about the conduct of police officers, information about the officers themselves and information concerning a public authority investigation about him. The Commissioner finds that the majority of this information is personal data relating to the complainant and, therefore, exempt by virtue of section 40(1). The Commissioner finds that the remainder of the information requested is personal data relating to third parties and that it is exempt by virtue of section 40(2) as the disclosure of it would breach the first data protection principle, or is not held by the public authority.Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2008/0001 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50083086
Case Ref: FS50121684
Date: 03/12/2007
Public Authority: Department for Culture Media and Sport
Summary: The complainant made a request for documents held in relation to the takeover of Manchester United. DCMS confirmed it held information relevant to the request but refused to disclose this as it related to the formulation of government policy and was legal advice and therefore exempt under sections 35 and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated and found that section 35 was engaged but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of the information. The Commissioner also found that section 42 was not engaged as the information did not attract legal advice privilege. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50121684
Case Ref: FS50101567
Date: 03/12/2007
Public Authority: East London and The City Mental Health NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant made two requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to East London and The City Mental Health NHS Trust (the “Trust”). The first request was for a copy of internal reports into the circumstances surrounding the death of a patient of the Trust (“Mr A”). The Trust refused to disclose the information and cited the exemptions at sections 40 and 44. It cited section 44 as it believed that if it were to disclose the reports it would be in breach of its common law duty of confidentiality. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Trust also stated that it was relying upon section 41 to withhold some of the information contained in the reports. The complainant also made a second request for the details of the solicitors acting on behalf of the family of Mr A. The Trust refused to release this information due to, “issues of confidentiality” – although it did not specify which exemption it was relying upon. In relation to the first request, the Commissioner decided most of the information in these reports was exempt from disclosure under section 41. He also decided that some information in the reports was exempt under section 40. In relation to the second request, the Commissioner decided that this information was exempt from disclosure under section 40. However, the Commissioner also decided that some of the information subject to the first request was not exempt under sections 40 or 41, and therefore he decided that this information should be disclosed. The Commissioner also decided that the Trust had not complied with section 17, as both refusal notices did not contain details of the Trust‘s internal review procedures or the contact details of the Commissioner. Further to this the second refusal notice did not contain details of the exemptions the Trust was relying upon.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50101567
Case Ref: FS50146982
Date: 03/12/2007
Public Authority: NHS London
Summary: The complainant wrote to North East London NHS Strategic Health Authority (the “SHA”) regarding an internal inquiry carried out by East London and The City NHS Mental Health Trust (the “MHT”) into the death of a patient (“Mr A”) in 2001, and the subsequent decision not to hold an independent inquiry into his death – a decision that had been made by the SHA. The complainant contacted the SHA and requested all information relating to the internal inquiry carried out by the MHT and any recommendations which the SHA had made. The request was made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). The SHA provided some information but withheld the majority of the information requested, citing the exemptions listed at sections 36 and 38. After carrying out an internal review, the SHA upheld the decision to withhold the information under section 36 and also stated it believed that some of the information in question was exempt under section 41. It did, however, inform the applicant that it was no longer relying on section 38. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the SHA confirmed that it held further documents which fell under the scope of the request, and informed him that it believed that sections 36, 41 and 44 applied to these documents – although it later dropped section 44. After considering the circumstances of the case the Commissioner decided that most of the information was exempt under sections 36 and 41. He also decided that a limited amount of information was exempt from disclosure under section 40. However, the Commissioner did decide that section 41 did not apply to all of the withheld information and that the SHA had breached the requirements of section 1 of the Act, in that it had wrongly withheld some information under this exemption. Further to this it had not fully informed the complainant of all the information it held in relation to her request. He also decided that the SHA was in breach of section 17, as it had not informed the complainant of all the exemptions it sought to rely upon. Consequently, the complaint is partially upheld and the Commissioner requires that some of the information be disclosed. NHS London has since taken over responsibilities for North East London NHS Strategic Health Authority, and therefore this notice is addressed to it. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50146982