February 2008

Case Ref: FS50097242
Date: 28/02/2008
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary: The complainant made 11 requests for information to the BBC for: details of the personal shareholding of members of staff who select and present coverage on the Working Lunch programme; details of financial relationships that exist between members of staff working on the programme and the financial experts who appear on it; a record of appearances of a financial expert; and a record of the coverage given to a particular company on the programme. The BBC refused to provide all the information requested on the basis that it was not a public authority in relation to the complainant’s request because the information was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature within the meaning set out in Schedule 1 of the Act. As an alternative argument the BBC applied section 40 and 41 to withhold the information. The complainant made a complaint to the Commissioner regarding the information withheld in points (i), (ii), (iii), (x) and (xi) of this request. The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the information in parts (x) and (xi) of the request is held for the dominant purpose of journalism, art and literature. However the Commissioner concluded that the BBC misapplied the Schedule 1 derogation and that the information requested in part (i), (ii) and (iii), falls within the scope of the Act. The Commissioner investigated the BBC’s application of the exemptions and found that the information requested is exempt from disclosure under section 40 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50097242

Case Ref: FS50102023
Date: 28/02/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant requested all the documents held by the Cabinet Office in relation to the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny if information is held under section 23(5) and 24(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and has upheld the application of section 23(5) and 24(2) to neither confirm nor deny if information is held. The Commissioner also found that the Cabinet Office’s refusal notice breached section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 23 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50102023

Case Ref: FS50107084
Date: 28/02/2008
Public Authority: The Chief Officer of Bedfordshire Police
Summary: The complainant requested statements obtained during the public authority’s investigation of events surrounding his son’s death and other statements obtained in relation to an event which occurred some time before his son’s death.  He also requested a copy of a report compiled by an officer of the public authority.  The public authority refused citing the exemptions at Section 40(2) (Unfair Disclosure of Personal Data) and Section 30 (Investigations Information). Some information was disclosed outside the scope of the Act as a gesture of goodwill.  The complainant was dissatisfied with the extent of this private disclosure and complained to this office arguing that all the requested information should have been disclosed to him under the Act.  Focussing on that information which remains withheld from the complainant, the Commissioner has decided that the public authority has correctly applied the exemption at Section 30(1) to the information that it holds.  Given that Section 30(1) applies to all the requested information, the Commissioner has not considered the application of any other exemption cited.  However, the Commissioner is not satisfied with the public authority’s refusal notice in three respects.  Firstly, it did not construe an earlier request of a similar nature as a request under the Act and therefore its response to that earlier request was out of time.  Secondly, it failed to confirm or deny whether it held some information caught by the scope of the earlier request which was not specifically referred to in a later request.  Thirdly, its explanation of the application of Section 40(2) is confusing and inaccurate.  He has therefore decided that the public authority did not comply with all its obligations under Section 1(1)(a), Section 17(1) and Section 17(3). 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 30 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50107084

Case Ref: FS50133286
Date: 28/02/2008
Public Authority: Chief Officer of Hertfordshire Constabulary
Summary: The complainant’s son died in a traffic incident which occurred on the A1(M) in Hertfordshire in July 2003.  Since then he has been in correspondence with the public authority seeking access to information relating to its investigation of this incident.  Partial disclosure had been made to him as the father of the deceased (not as a member of the public) but he was dissatisfied with the extent of this disclosure.  In July 2006, he requested all information, documentation and reports relating to the circumstances of his son’s death.  The public authority refused to provide this information citing Section 40(2) (Unfair Disclosure of Personal Data) and Section 30(1) (Investigations Information) as its basis for doing so. It further argued that the public interest in maintaining the exemption at Section 30(1) outweighed the public interest in disclosure.  It upheld this position on review in relation to most of the information but did disclose some information with third party names redacted.  The Commissioner has decided that most of the remaining information is exempt by virtue of Section 30(1) and the public interest in maintaining this exemption in relation to that information outweighs the public interest in disclosure.  However, the Commissioner has identified some information which should have been disclosed under the Act because the public interest in disclosure in relation to this piece of information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  In failing to provide this information, the public authority contravened the requirements of Section 1(1(b) of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose it with certain personal details redacted in order to satisfy the requirements of the first data protection principle of the Data Protection Act 1998.   The public authority also failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days.  In failing to do so, it contravened the requirements of Section 17(1) of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50133286

Case Ref: FS50164273
Date: 27/02/2008
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary: The complainant requested from the BBC the total cost of the Castaway programme. The BBC refused to provide this information on the basis that it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. Having considered the circumstances of the case the Commissioner has concluded that the BBC has misapplied the Schedule 1 derogation and that this information falls within the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation the BBC argued, without prejudice to its position on the derogation, that the requested information was exempt on the basis of section 43 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43 and that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50164273

Case Ref: FS50072198
Date: 27/02/2008
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary: The complainant requested information on the salaries of a number of named BBC Northern Ireland presenters as well as information relating the in house production costs and the cost paid to an independent production company. The BBC refused to provide this information on the basis that it was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature. During the course of the investigation the BBC also sought to rely on exemptions under the Act to withhold the information. The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the BBC misapplied the Schedule 1 derogation and that the information requested falls within the scope of the Act. The Commissioner investigated the BBC’s application of the exemptions and found that the salaries of the presenters are exempt under section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner also found that some of the information was exempt under section 43 and that the public interest favoured maintaining this exemption. However, the Commissioner found the remaining withheld information was not exempt and should therefore be provided to the complainant within 35 calendar days of this notice. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 –Complaint not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50072198

Case Ref: FS50088137
Date: 26/02/2008
Public Authority: General Medical Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the GMC in relation to a complaint and subsequent investigation and hearings concerning a named doctor.  The GMC did not confirm or deny whether it had received any previous complaints against the doctor under sections 40(2) and 41.  The GMC supplied some information, exempted in camera transcripts under sections 40(2) and 41 and claimed that the rest of the information requested was not held.  The Commissioner is satisfied that the information withheld was correctly exempted under section 40(2) and that the remainder of the information is not held.  However, the Commissioner has concluded that GMC breached section 17 of the Act because it failed to provide an adequate refusal notice within the 20 working days. No further steps are required. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50088137

Case Ref: FS50142318
Date: 26/02/2008
Public Authority: Somerset NHS Primary Care Trust
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a contract agreed by the Somerset NHS Primary Care Trust for the provision of an independent treatment centre. He also requested other additional documents related to the treatment centre. The public authority refused to disclose some of the requested information on the basis of the exemptions contained in sections 41 (confidential information) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the Act. The Commissioner determined that some of the information contained in the contract, relating to how the service provider had calculated its prices, was exempt under section 41 and a limited amount of information in the additional documents was exempt under section 43(2), as it related to the public authority’s contract management strategy. He ordered the remainder of the information that had been withheld to be disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50142318

Case Ref: FS50165280
Date: 25/02/2008
Public Authority: Bletchingley Parish Council
Summary: The complainant asked for copies of the annual reports and accounts of Bletchingley Parish Council (“the Council”) from 2004-2007, a letter from the Council’s indemnity insurer authorising it “sole executive powers” and a copy of the original proposal form and terms and conditions of the Council’s original insurance policy. The Council advised the complainant that the annual accounts were already in the public domain and therefore exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”). It applied the exemption under section 42 (Legal Professional Privilege) to the original insurance documents requested because of ongoing litigation involving the complainant. The Commissioner investigated and was satisfied that the annual accounts and reports are available on the website and are therefore exempt under section 21 of the Act. However, he found that the remainder of the information requested concerning the Council’s insurer is not held by the Council. In addition, the Commissioner noted a number of procedural failings, in particular the Council breached section 1 and section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50165280

Case Ref: FS50138964
Date: 25/02/2008
Public Authority: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’)
Summary: The complainant requested part of HMRC’s internal guidance on processing tax returns submitted by self-assessment taxpayers under the construction industry scheme. HMRC refused to provide a particular section of this guidance because it considered it to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31(1)(d) (assessment or collection of any tax or duty). Having reviewed the withheld information the Commissioner has decided that HMRC appropriately relied upon section 31 when refusing to supply the information.
However, the Commissioner has also concluded that HMRC breached section 17 by failing to provide the complainant with an adequate refusal notice within 20 working days of his request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50138964

Case Ref: FS50107135
Date: 25/02/2008
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence
Summary: The complainant asked MOD for details of the advice given to its Minister about the Minister’s powers to stop-up existing rights of way and to create replacements. MOD refused to provide the information, citing the exemptions in sections 35(1)(a) and 42(1) of the Act. At review stage MOD withdrew its reliance on section 35 and substituted section 36(2)(b)(i), although it later reverted to section 35. The Commissioner has decided that the exemption in section 42(1) is engaged in relation to some of the information in the submissions to the Minister and that, in all the circumstances of this case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing that information. As regards the remaining information, the Commissioner decided that MOD had misapplied section 35(1)(a) but that the exemption in section 36(2)(b) was engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing that information at the time the request was made.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50107135

Case Ref: FS50105478
Date: 20/02/2008
Public Authority: Chief Constable of Cumbria Constabulary 
Summary: The complainant requested information about a review of the policies of the public authority carried out by a consultancy firm and about the handling of an information request made by him previously. The public authority withheld the information, citing sections 40 (personal information), 41 (information provided in confidence), 42 (legal professional privilege) and 43 (commercial interests). The Commissioner finds that the information about the handling of the previous information request made by the complainant is personal data relating to the complainant and thus exempt under section 40(1). In relation to the information about the consultancy review, the Commissioner finds that the exemptions cited were applied incorrectly and the public authority is required to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. The Commissioner has also found the public authority in breach of the procedural requirements of the Act in that it initially failed to respond within 20 working days of receipt of the request and that the initial response failed to clarify what information was held by the public authority that fell within the scope of the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50105478

Case Ref: FS50147017
Date: 20/02/2008
Public Authority: The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust
Summary: The complainant requested details of the retirement packages agreed between the public authority and two of their former senior employees upon their departures. The public authority withheld the requested information on the basis that it was exempt under section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioners decision is to uphold the public authority’s application of section 40(2) to withhold the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50147017

Case Ref: FS50084358
Date: 19/02/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant appealed to the Commissioner about the Cabinet Office’s refusal to supply him with the second part of a report produced for the Prime Minister by Lord Birt on the subject of crime. The Cabinet Office stated that the information was exempt from disclosure under sections 35 (Formulation of government policy) and to the extent that the information is not exempt by virtue of section 35, section 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). However, it confirmed that much of the withheld information is in the public domain as the information is derived from statistics published by the Home Office. The Commissioner has decided that all the information (aside from the statistical information contained within the report) is exempt under section 35, but that the balance of the public interest test favours the disclosure of this information. This led the Commissioner to further decide that section 36 cannot be engaged in respect of this information. This is because section 36(1)(a) provides that section 36 can only apply to information held by a government department which is not exempt by virtue of section 35. In addition, although the Commissioner does not consider the statistical information contained within the report to be exempt by virtue of section 35, he does not consider that prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs could be caused by its disclosure. The Commissioner therefore requires the Cabinet Office to supply the withheld information to the complainant. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal. 
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50084358

Case Ref: FS50126376
Date: 19/02/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant wrote the Cabinet Office to request “Any record or document or extract thereof reporting or evidencing discussions between President Bush and the Prime Minister about the bombing of Al-Jazeera television office in Qatar or elsewhere.  The request additionally seeks any document which records comment upon or analysis of such discussions.”  The Cabinet Office informed the complainant that a memo it holds recording discussions between President Bush and the Prime Minister in April 2004 “does not refer to the “bombing of Al-Jazeera television offices in Qatar or elsewhere.”  The Commissioner believes that the Cabinet Office should not have restricted its response to consideration of the April 2004 memo alone. The Commissioner therefore not only investigated whether the Cabinet Office was correct in its assertion in relation to the 2004 memo but also investigated whether it held any other information which contains details of the subject matter requested.  Having conducted his analysis, the Commissioner is satisfied that the Cabinet Office did not hold any information which fell within the scope of the complainant’s request. 
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50126376

Case Ref: FS50165372
Date: 19/02/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant requested Cabinet minutes and records relating to meetings it held from 7 to 17 March 2003 where the Attorney General’s legal advice concerning military action against Iraq was considered and discussed. The Cabinet Office confirmed to the complainant that during the period in question, there were two meetings of the Cabinet. However, it withheld the information under sections 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Act (‘Formulation of government policy’ and ‘Ministerial communications’). The Commissioner accepts that sections 35(1)(a) and (b) are engaged in this case. However, he concluded that (subject to certain specific redactions) the balance of the public interest under section 35 favours disclosure of the information in full. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50165372

Case Ref: FS50155386
Date: 19/02/2008
Public Authority: Devon County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Devon County Council (“the Council”).  The Council claimed that the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155386

Case Ref: FS50155394
Date: 19/02/2008
Public Authority: Hampshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Hampshire County Council (“the Council”).  The Council claimed that the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155394

Case Ref: FS50155395
Date: 19/02/2008
Public Authority: Hertfordshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Hertfordshire County Council (“the Council”).  The Council claimed that the information was exempt on the basis that the exemption in section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  Whilst the Council did not seek to withhold the information on the grounds that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) applied, the Commissioner has considered whether the Council would have been justified in applying this exemption.  The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable.  However, the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was therefore not engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision is that the information should be disclosed, with minor redactions.  
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155395

Case Ref: FS50166599
Date: 19/02/2008
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant asked the Home Office for information relating to work permits issued to employers.  The Home Office confirmed that they were refusing to provide the information because it was not held in the required format.  They qualified that, in order to comply with the request, they would need to create the information, something they were not required to do by the Act. In addition the Home Office confirmed that, in this case, the actions they would need to take to produce the information would place a “disproportionate strain on resources”. The Commissioner found that the requested information was recorded in an electronic database and that, in order to locate, retrieve and extract this, the Home Office would need to write and run a report.  The Commissioner does not accept that the level of difficulty involved in performing these activities has a bearing on the question of whether information is or is not held by a public authority.  His decision was that the information requested is held by the Home Office and that in failing to either provide it or provide alternative reasons under the Act for not doing so, they breached section 1. Also, the Commissioner found that, in failing to provide a proper reason for refusing the request, the Home Office breached section 17(1) of the Act. The Commissioner required the Home Office to either provide the complainant with the requested information or provide valid reasons for not doing this. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2008/0027 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld and FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50166599

Case Ref: FS50155404
Date: 19/02/2008
Public Authority: London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers and the commission payments relating to one of its investment managers, however claimed that the information relating to the remaining two investment managers was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.  The Commissioner also found that the Council breached section 17 of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with an adequate refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155404

Case Ref: FS50155409 
Date: 19/02/2008
Public Authority: London Borough of Lambeth
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”).  The Council claimed that the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43 applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  The Commissioner has also decided that the information requested does not constitute a trade secret and therefore section 43(1) does not apply.  Whilst the Council did not raise the issue of the section 41 exemption (information provided in confidence), the Commissioner has decided that that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption would not be engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155409

Case Ref: FS50155411
Date: 19/02/2008
Public Authority: London Borough of Redbridge
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Redbridge (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of two of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable; however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155411

Case Ref: FS50155412
Date: 19/02/2008
Public Authority: London Borough of Southwark
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”).  The Council supplied details of how to obtain the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43 and section 41 applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner has also decided that the information requested does not constitute a trade secret and therefore section 43(1) does not apply.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 (information provided in confidence) was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155412

Case Ref: FS50142681
Date: 19/02/2008
Public Authority: Torbay Council
Summary: The complainant made a request to Torbay Council (“the Council”) for information about draft documents referred to in council minutes dated 17 March 1939 and their finalisation by a particular firm of solicitors. The documents related to the development of a holiday camp. The Council responded and stated that it had provided everything it held concerning the development to a member of the public known to the complainant but that it could provide further copies to the complainant if necessary. It stated that it did not hold any other information. The Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) investigated and was satisfied that the Council does not hold the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(4)(a) – Complaint Not Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50142681

Case Ref: FS50121354
Date: 18/02/2008
Public Authority: Health and Safety Executive
Summary: The complainant asked the Health and Safety Executive (the “HSE”) for information about an analysis of a report of an investigation carried out into a potentially fatal accident on a building site. HSE refused to disclose the analysis under the exemption contained in section 30(1) of the Act. The Commissioner found that section 30 was engaged but concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption was outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also found that HSE’s refusal notice had not complied with the requirements of section 17(7) of the Act. The Commissioner requires HSE to disclose the withheld information within 35 calendar days from the date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17- Complaint Upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50121354

Case Ref: FER0096306
Date: 14/02/2008
Public Authority: East Lindsey District Council
Summary: The complainant was in dispute with the Council about a proposal to site a wind farm in the locality. He contacted the Commissioner to ask for assistance in obtaining a copy of some legal advice received by the Council, having been told that it was confidential. He also wanted copies of any correspondence surrounding the advice. After the Commissioner’s intervention the Council provided the legal advice and copies of all the surrounding correspondence it said it held. The complainant considered that the Council held further information. The Commissioner was satisfied that the Council had searched thoroughly for all the information which was covered by the request and that it had supplied this to the complainant. He concluded that on the balance of probabilities no other material was held, although the Council had failed to communicate this in its Refusal Notice, thereby breaching regulation 14(1) of the EIR. The Council also failed to provide an adequate Refusal Notice within 20 working days, thereby breaching regulation 14(2) and (3). The Commissioner also considered the Council had breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide the information it did hold with 20 working days. He concluded that the Council had wrongly applied the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) by claiming that the legal advice was excepted from disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12(5)(b)– Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0096306

Case Ref: FS50155428
Date: 14/02/08
Public Authority: West Sussex County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of West Sussex County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the majority of the information requested however claimed that the information it had redacted was exempt on the basis that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  Whilst the Council did not raise the issue of the section 41 exemption, the Commissioner has decided that that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption would not be engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the Council has already provided the information to which the complainant is entitled and therefore it is not required to take any further steps in respect of this complaint.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155428

Case Ref: FS50131779
Date: 13/02/2008
Public Authority: The Council of the University of Southampton
Summary: The University received a request for information concerning all of the data, reports, correspondence and memoranda it holds in relation to two Assessment Reports.  The University determined that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and therefore issued a Refusal Notice citing section 12 of the Act.  The complainant responded to the refusal by limiting the scope of his request to the material relating to a single Assessment Report.  The University again refused to comply with the request in reliance of section 12.  Furthermore, when it concluded its Internal Review of this case, the University determined that the request additionally failed on the ground that it had been made by a corporate entity and not an individual.  The Commissioner has investigated the extent to which the University holds relevant information.  He is satisfied that the appropriate limit would be exceeded in complying with the revised request.  However, the Commissioner also finds that the University failed in its duty to provide the complainant with advice and assistance and therefore it breached section 16 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50131779

Case Ref: FS50155406
Date: 13/02/2008
Public Authority: Harrow Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Harrow Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155406

Case Ref: FS50155410
Date: 13/02/2008
Public Authority: London Borough of Islington
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Islington (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that it was commercially sensitive.  The Commissioner has therefore considered whether the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) could be applied to the information in question.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.  In addition, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 17 of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with an adequate refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155410

Case Ref: FS50115636
Date: 13/02/2008
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for a complete database data dump in machine-readable format of information from its Statute Law Database editing system or, failing that, from its ‘Documents’ database. The public authority refused the primary request as exceeding the ‘appropriate limit’ of £600, and the alternative request as being exempt under sections 22 and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner decided that the primary request was indeed exempt by virtue of section 12, but that neither section 22 nor section 43 applied to the alternative request, which should therefore be disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not Upheld, , FOI 22 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50115636

Case Ref: FS50155418
Date: 13/02/2008
Public Authority: Oxfordshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Oxfordshire County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  Whilst the Council did not raise the issue of the section 41 exemption, the Commissioner has decided that that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption would not be engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155418

Case Ref: FS50155423
Date: 13/02/2008
Public Authority: Somerset County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Somerset County Council (“the Council”). The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) applied. The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. Whilst the Council did not raise the issue of the section 41 exemption, the Commissioner has decided that that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption would not be engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155423

Case Ref: FS50155424
Date: 13/02/2008
Public Authority: Suffolk County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Suffolk County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  Whilst the Council did not raise the issue of the section 41 exemption, the Commissioner has decided that that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption would not be engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155424

Case Ref: FS50155425
Date: 13/02/2008
Public Authority: Surrey County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Surrey County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the majority of the information requested however claimed that the information it had redacted was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the Council has already provided the information to which the complainant is entitled and therefore it is not required to take any further steps in respect of this complaint.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155425

Case Ref: FS50155429
Date: 13/02/2008
Public Authority: Wiltshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Wiltshire County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155429

Case Ref: FER0066052
Date: 12/02/2008
Public Authority: East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a waste management contract the council has agreed with an independent waste management contractor. The council withheld some sections of the contract on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of information) applied. The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the council has not dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with the Regulations in that some sections of the redacted information should have been supplied to the complainant. The exception to the duty to disclose the requested information was however applicable to other sections of the contract.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12 (5) (e) – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0066052

Case Ref: FS50145243
Date: 12/02/2008 
Public Authority: The Governing Body of Ashfield School
Summary: The complainant requested information from Ashfield School about the Chair of Governor’s investigation of a number of his grievances.  The Governors have given the complainant some information, principally the minutes of the meeting where the grievances were heard.  The complainant stresses that it is Chair’s notes of his investigation and any associated documents related to his complaints that he is seeking. The Commissioner has determined that the Governors were not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information by virtue of section 40(5) of the Act.  This is on the basis that, if the information was held, it would constitute the complainant’s personal data and would be exempt under section 40(1).  The Commissioner considers that the School 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.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50145243

Case Ref: FS50084068
Date: 12/02/2008 
Public Authority:Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Summary: The complainant requested all the documents held by the public authority in the ‘jury bundle’ from a specific trial. HMRC refused to disclose the requested information under section 30 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that section 30 is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2008/0026 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50084068

Case Ref: FS50134467
Date: 11/02/2008
Public Authority: Monmouthshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to a Traffic Regulation Order. The public authority responded belatedly to the request and failed to supply all of the information requested. Following the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority has now disclosed all of the information requested by the complainant. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority has breached Regulations 5 (2), 9 (1) and 11 (4) of the EIR. 
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 (2) – Complaint upheld, EIR 9 (1) – Complaint upheld, EIR 11 (4) – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50134467

Case Ref: FS50155381
Date: 06/02/2008
Public Authority: Cornwall County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Cornwall County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155381

Case Ref: FS50155397
Date: 06/02/2008
Public Authority: Kent County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Kent County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155397

Case Ref: FS50155403
Date: 06/02/2008
Public Authority: London Borough of Newham
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Newham (“the Council”).  The Council has supplied the names of its investment managers however claims that the remainder of the information is exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applies.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He has also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155403

Case Ref: FS50155416
Date: 06/02/2008
Public Authority: London Borough of Sutton
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Sutton (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  Whilst the Council did not raise the issue of the section 41 exemption, the Commissioner has decided that that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption would not be engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155416

Case Ref: FS50155417
Date: 06/02/2008
Public Authority: Norfolk County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Norfolk County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  Whilst the Council did not raise the issue of the section 41 exemption, the Commissioner has decided that that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption would not be engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155417

Case Ref: FS50155420
Date: 06/02/2008
Public Authority: The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  Whilst the Council did not raise the issue of the section 41 exemption, the Commissioner has decided that that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption would not be engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155420

Case Ref: FS50155421
Date: 06/02/2008
Public Authority: Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.  In addition, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 17 of the Act by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155421

Case Ref: FS50152888
Date: 05/02/2008
Public Authority: Companies House
Summary: The complainant asked Companies House to tell him the identity of an informant who had made allegations, he believed maliciously, about his company which had proved to be unfounded. Companies House had refused the request citing the section 41 exemption. The Commissioner found that, in refusing the request, Companies House had dealt with it in accordance with part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act; he also found no evidence of malicious intent on the part of the informant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50152888

Case Ref: FS50151851
Date: 05/02/2008
Public Authority: Department for Communities and Local Government
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the North West Regional Assembly from the Government Office for the North West, which refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it was vexatious, in accordance with the exclusion at section 14 of the Act.  Following a request for internal review, the decision to cite section 14 was upheld by the Government Office for the South West, on behalf of the Department for Communities and Local Government.  The Commission’s decision is that the public authority, in this case the Department for Communities and Local Government, applied the Act appropriately in refusing to comply with the request, citing section 14 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50151851

Case Ref: FER0079969
Date: 05/02/2008
Public Authority: East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Summary: The Complainant requested information on a contract signed by the public authority with a third party waste management company. He requested the price currently payable to the contractor for every tonne of waste dealt with – otherwise known as the “gate fee”. The council claimed that the information was exempt from disclosure under the exception in regulation 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner has considered this argument and his decision is that the exception is not applicable. As the decision is finely balanced the Commissioner also considered, on the alternative assumption that regulation 12(5)(e) does apply, whether the public interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exception. His decision is that it is not.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12 (5) (e) – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0079969

Case Ref: FS50154380
Date: 05/02/2008
Public Authority: HM Revenue and Customs
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information about the resignation of Sir David Varney from the public authority and his appointment as the Chancellor’s adviser on Transformational Government. The public authority provided the information which it held, having redacted the distribution lists for any emails included. The complainant expressed his doubts to the Commissioner that the public authority had provided all relevant information. After obtaining the public authority’s comments and investigating the matter, the Commissioner concluded that there was no evidence that any further information might be held, and therefore decided that the public authority had discharged its obligations under the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50154380

Case Ref: FER0104939
Date: 05/02/2008 
Public Authority: Lake District National Park Authority
Summary: The complainant requested information surrounding a query/complaint made to the public authority regarding scaffolding erected at their property.  The authority refused to supply the information, later relying on sections 31 and 40 of the Act.  Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the authority accepted that the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 were the correct access regime under which to consider the request and agreed to supply all the information requested save that information which constituted the personal information of the author(s) of the original query/complaint.  The authority did not comply with regulation 14 as it issued an inadequate refusal notice.  The Commissioner is satisfied that during the course of his investigation, the complainant was supplied with all the information to which they are entitled and therefore, does not require the authority to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0104939

Case Ref: FS50155895
Date: 05/02/2008
Public Authority: NHS East Midlands
Summary: The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to NHS East Midlands Strategic Health Authority (the “SHA”) for any documentation surrounding the decision of a Scrutiny Group which considered retrospective NHS funding for the long term care of her late husband. The SHA informed the complainant that the Scrutiny Group had reached its decision based on information provided by a representative of Charnwood and North West Leicestershire Primary Care Trust (the “PCT”) and the Clinical Assessor’s views, both of which had been disclosed to her at the meeting; and her late husband’s medical / care records, which it no longer held. Following this the complainant contacted the SHA again and informed it that the information she sought was the rationale for the decision of the Scrutiny Group, and referred to notes taken by members of the group during the meeting. The SHA informed her that it did not hold this information. After considering the information provided by both parties the Commissioner is satisfied that the SHA does not hold any further information in relation to the Scrutiny Group, other than that previously provided to the complainant. Therefore he has decided that the SHA complied with section 1 of the Act. However, the Commissioner has also decided that the SHA acted in breach of section 10 of the Act as it took longer that 20 working days to respond to the request. The Commissioner does not require the SHA to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint up held.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155895

Case Ref: FS50155375
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: Bath and North East Somerset Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Bath and North East Somerset Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155375

Case Ref: FS50155380
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: Bedfordshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Bedfordshire County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.  In addition, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 17 of the Act by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155380

Case Ref: FS50093445
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information about steel trade tariffs. The Cabinet Office withheld the information as exempt under section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’), citing a statutory bar created by Article 19(5) of the basic European Community Anti-Dumping Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 384/96). As a result of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority released some information, but added section 27(1)(a) and (c) as an exemption in relation to part of the remainder. The Commissioner decided that section 44 did not apply to the information which the public authority was continuing to withhold because the information did not fall within the cited Regulation. He also decided that section 27(1)(a) and (c) was not engaged because there was no reasonable likelihood of prejudice. He therefore required the public authority to release the remaining information. The Commissioner also decided that the public authority had breached section 17(1) of the Act because it took 69 working days to respond to the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 27 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50093445

Case Ref: FS50155384
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: Carmarthenshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Carmarthenshire County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the name of its investment manager however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155384

Case Ref: FS50155379
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority:  Cheshire County Council
Summary:  The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Cheshire County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the majority of the information requested however claimed that the information it had redacted was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the Council has already provided the information to which the complainant is entitled and therefore it is not required to take any further steps in respect of this complaint.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155379

Case Ref: FS50155387
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of East Riding of Yorkshire Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the name of its investment manager however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155387

Case Ref: FS50155385
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: Gwynedd Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Gwynedd Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the name of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155385

Case Ref: FS50155398
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: Leicestershire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Leicestershire County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155398

Case Ref: FS50155400
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: Lincolnshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Lincolnshire County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 41 –Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155400

Case Ref: FS50155378
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: London Borough of Bexley
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the London Borough of Bexley (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the majority of the information requested however claimed that the information it had redacted (names of brokers used by one particular investment manager) was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the Council has already provided the information to which the complainant is entitled and therefore it is not required to take any further steps in respect of this complaint.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 –Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155378

Case Ref: FS50121252
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: The Scotland Office
Summary: The Complainant requested access to a file held by the Scotland Office. The Scotland Office refused this request under sections 28 and 35 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that section 28 is not engaged as the Scotland Office failed to demonstrate that disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to prejudice relations between the devolved administrations. The Commissioner found that section 35 was engaged, as the information does relate to the formulation and development of government policy, but concluded that the public interest favoured disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclosure the requested information within 35 calendar days of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 28 – Complaint upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50121252

Case Ref: FS50155391
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of the council. The council claimed that the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied. The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable. However the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information should be disclosed with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155391

Case Ref: FS50155422
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: Shropshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Shropshire County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers and details of the commission payments made by three of those investment managers, however claimed that the information relating to the fourth investment manager was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information relating to the fourth manager should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155422

Case Ref: FER0148337
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: Verderers of the New Forest
Summary: The complainant requested the Verderers of the New Forest to release a schedule of the individual payments made to elected verderers participating in the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and a copy of legal advice it obtained from its lawyer concerning this activity and its compliance with the New Forest Act 1877. The Verderers considered the request and refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 40 and 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 requested information was environmental information and therefore the complainant’s request should have been dealt with under the EIR. The Verderers reconsidered the request under the EIR and claimed that exception 12(5)(b) and regulation 13 applied to the requested information. The Commissioner considered the arguments presented by both parties. In respect of the legal advice requested, the Commissioner concluded that the Verderers were correct to rely on exception 12(5)(b) and that the public interest favoured maintaining this exception. However, in respect of the individual payments made to elected verderers, the Commissioner concluded that there would be no unfairness to those verderers if the information was released and that disclosure would not contravene the Data Protection Act. The Commissioner has therefore ordered the Verderers to release this information to the complainant within 35 days of this Notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(5)(b) – Complaint not upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0148337

Case Ref: FS50155427
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: Warwickshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Warwickshire County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155427

Case Ref: FS50155430
Date: 04/02/2008
Public Authority: Worcestershire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Worcestershire County Council (“the Council”).  The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied.  The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption.  He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable; however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law.  The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information.  The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155430