Case Ref: FS50098771
Date: 29 April 2008
Public Authority: Department for Children, Schools and Families
Summary: The complainant asked DCSF for a copy of information that it held relating to the academy of which he is a proprietor, including a letter which brought the existence of the academy to DCSF’s notice. The Commissioner found that DCSF had correctly applied the exemptions in sections 31, and 42 and that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. He also found that the information contained in the letter was personal information relating to the complainant and was therefore exempt from disclosure under this legislation through the operation of section 40(1) and that the name of an official could be withheld under the exemption in section 40(2).The Commissioner also concluded that DCSF had breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act by late disclosure of the requested information, by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days of receiving the request and by failing to cite all of the exemptions on which it was relying within that period.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 – Compliant Not Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50098771
Case Ref: FS50155503
Date: 29/04/2008
Public Authority: Department for Children, Schools and Families
Summary: The complainant asked DCSF for a copy of information that it held for the period November 2005 to September 2006 relating to the academy of which he is a proprietor. DSCF declined to provide the information on the grounds that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit (section 12). The complainant made revised information requests relating to shorter periods. DSCF declined to comply with one of the revised requests on cost grounds under the aggregation provisions, but provided some information in relation to the other requests, withholding the remaining information under the exemptions in sections 36(2)(b) and 42.The Commissioner found that DCSF was entitled to rely on section 12 and that it had correctly applied the exemptions in sections 36(2)(b) and 42 in relation to the majority of the withheld information. It had, however, misapplied the exemption in section 36(2)(b) to some of the information it held for which the public interest in maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner also found that, in relation to one of the revised requests, DCSF had breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155503
Case Ref: FS50088853
Date: 24/04/2008
Public Authority: HM Treasury
Summary: The complainant sought the background papers relating to the decision announced in the 1993 Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Finances that the Queen and the Prince of Wales would voluntarily pay income tax. The Treasury refused to release the information, citing section 40 of the Act and, after the complainant had referred the matter to the Commissioner, sections 35, 37, 41 and 42 in addition. The Commissioner decided that the Treasury had correctly applied sections 37, 40 and 41 to the material under consideration but that it had breached section 17 of the Act in not informing the complainant of all the exemptions that it was intending to apply to the information sought.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 37 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50088853
Case Ref: FS50123488
Date: 14/04/2008
Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
Summary: The complainant made two requests for information to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) for information relating to a managing agency, his syndicate and Lloyd’s. The FSA refused to disclose the information requested in the first request under section 12 of the Act and the information requested in the second request under sections 44, 43, 40 and 31 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated and found that the FSA were correct to rely on section 12 to withhold the information requested in the first request. In relation to the second request the Commissioner has found that sections 44 and 40 are engaged but that sections 43 and 31 are not. The Commissioner requires the FSA to disclose the information withheld under sections 43 and 31 within 35 calendar days of this notice. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI -17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50123488
Case Ref: FS50120314
Date: 15/04/2008
Public Authority: Department of Health
Summary: The complainant requested a report from the public authority that it had prepared on the charging of overseas visitors for treatment received under the NHS. Initially the public authority refused to disclose any of the report. However, it subsequently decided to release the report but withheld the names of the NHS Trusts which provided information to assist in its preparation. These names were withheld under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) (inhibition of the free and frank exchange of views), 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 41 (information provided in confidence).The Commissioner determined that none of the exemptions were applicable to the information and ordered it to be disclosed to the complainant. He also found that the public authority breached section 17(1)(b) and (c), as it did not state in its initial refusal notice that section 41 was applicable to the information requested and did not explain why it applied.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17- Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld, FOI – 41 Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50120314
Case Ref: FS50114967
Date: 14/04/2008
Public Authority: The Department of Health
Summary: The complainant made a number of requests to the Department of Health (the “DoH”) in connection with NHS Connecting for Health and the PACS (Picture Archiving and Communications System) procurement programme. These requests were made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). Whilst most of the information was disclosed the DoH withheld the PACS Additional Services Catalogue for the Southern Cluster (the “Catalogue”) under sections 41 and 43. During the course of the investigation the DoH informed the Commissioner that it was now relying solely upon section 43. After considering the DoH’s arguments the Commissioner is not persuaded that the disclosure of the Catalogue would prejudice the commercial interests of either the DoH or the IT provider. Therefore the Commissioner has decided that section 43 is not engaged. Therefore the Commissioner found that the DoH had acted in breach of section 1 in that it had wrongly relied upon section 43 to withhold this information. The Commissioner also decided that the DoH had acted in breach of section 17 as it took longer than 20 working days to issue a refusal notice. The Commissioner requires the Catalogue to be disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50114967
Case Ref: FS50105954
Date: 09/04/2008
Public Authority: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Summary: The complainant requested from DEFRA the release of briefing notes and background evidence advice in relation to the issue of redress in the case of the cross-contamination of non-GM crops by GM crops. He also requested relevant legal advice and to be told the names of those with whom the legal advice had been shared. DEFRA initially refused to release this information under the Environmental Information Regulations but, at review stage, decided that the matter was more appropriately dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act. DEFRA withheld the information sought under sections 22, 35 and 42 of the Act. Subsequently DEFRA agreed to release much of the information to the complainant as it had now reached the public domain but continued to withhold information under sections 35 and 42. The Commissioner decided that the information had been correctly withheld under section 35, and did not therefore consider section 42. DEFRA was criticised for failing to issue a Refusal Notice under the correct legislation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50105954
Case Ref: FS50117924
Date: 09/04/2008
Public Authority: United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA)
Summary: The complainant requested access to 11 files held by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). UKAEA disclosed the contents of four of the files to the complainant but refused to disclose the remaining seven files under regulation 12(5) (a) The Commissioner has considered the issues and found that regulation 12(5) (a) of the EIR did apply and that in all circumstances the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. However the Commissioner also found that the refusal notice issued was in breach of regulation 14.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(5) (a) – Complaint not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50117924
Case Ref: FER0169710
Date: 07/04/2008
Public Authority: Stevenage Borough Council
Summary: The complainant made a series of requests concerning the sale of Stevenage Borough Council’s (“the Council”) freehold interest in an area of land and the granting of planning permission for the site. The Council refused the requests on the basis that either the exclusion under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) applied or, if the information could be deemed to be environmental, the exception under section 12(4)(b) applied under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). The Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) investigated and was satisfied that the Council was able to demonstrate that the requests had been correctly refused under 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner also considered that the public interest in maintaining the exception in this case outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 11(3) – Complaint upheld, EIR 14(1) – Complaint upheld, EIR 14(3)(b) – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0169710
Case Ref: FS50140492
Date: 04/04/2008
Public Authority:
The Home Office
Summary:
The complainant requested the names of three former Ministers provided with the use of a government car. The Home Office disclosed the name of one Minister but refused to disclose the other two names under sections 31 and 38 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated and found that the exemptions were not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding:
FOI 17 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50140492
Case Ref: FS50146380
Date: 04/04/2008
Public Authority: The Scotland Office
Summary: The complainant made two requests to the Office of the Advocate General for Scotland (part of the Scotland Office) for legal advice the Advocate General and his office may have produced in relation to legal proceedings which he was a party to. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether it held the legal advice specified in the first request under section 42 of the Act. It refused to confirm or deny whether it held the legal advice specified in the second request under sections 35 and 42 of the Act. During the course of the investigation the public authority informed the Commissioner that, in respect of the first request, it was no longer refusing to confirm or deny whether it held the legal advice. It confirmed that it held the advice but refused to disclose the content under section 42 of the Act. In respect of the second request it informed the Commissioner that it no longer wished to rely on section 42 but was continuing to rely on section 35 in support of its decision to refuse to confirm or deny. Having investigated the complaint the Commissioner has found that the information specified in the first request was exempt under section 42 of the Act and the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption but that the public authority breached section (1)(1)(a) of the Act by failing to confirm or deny to the complainant if the information was held. In respect of the second request the Commissioner found that section 35 was engaged and the public interest favoured maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50146380
Case Ref: FS50119242
Date: 03/04/2008
Public Authority: The Department of Health
Summary: The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the Department of Health (the “DoH”) relating to a report published by the Standing Dental Advisory Committee in November 2003, entitled “Conscious Sedation in the Provision of Dental Care.” The complainant requested copies of all minutes and correspondence relating to meetings and conclusions reached whilst this report was being drafted. The DoH withheld this information and cited section 35, arguing that the information related to the formulation or development of government policy. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the information in question did not relate to the formulation or development of government policy, and therefore he does not believe that the exemption is engaged. However, he does believe that the withheld information contains some information that is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2). Therefore he believes that the information in question should be disclosed, with the above personal data redacted. The Commissioner also decided that the DoH had failed to meet the requirements of section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld. FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50119242
Case Ref: FS50129653
Date: 02/04/2008
Public Authority: Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested information surrounding the disposal of Sully Hospital. The public authority disclosed some of the information and refused some by relying on sections 12(1) and 43(2) of the Act and advised the complainant that it did not hold the remainder. The Commissioner found that the public authority did not initially respond to every aspect of the request, however following the Commissioner’s investigation further information has been released to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did breach sections 1(1), 10(1), 17(1) and 17(5) of the Act; however has cited sections 12(1) and 43(2) appropriately in relation to certain information requested by the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2008/0042 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50129653
Case Ref: FS50072940
Date: 02/04/2008
Public Authority: University College London
Summary: On the 1 January 2005 the complainant made a request for information to University College London (“UCL”). The complainant sought three pieces of information held by UCL relating to Dr Andrew Wakefield’s research into the MMR vaccine , as follows:-‘Patent Applications’; the ‘Management of MMR Controversy’; and details relating to the custody of records. UCL refused to disclose this information under section 21, section 36, section 38, section 40, section 41, section 42 and section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”). The Commissioner finds UCL in breach of section 1 (1) (b), 17 (1), 17 (3), 17 (7) 10 (1) of the Act and finds that some of the information ought to have been disclosed to the complainant. As a result of the Commissioner’s intervention some of the information was disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner requires UCL to disclose some of those categories of the withheld information as identified in this decision notice and as set out in an attached annex served on UCL.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50072940
Case Ref: FS50148767
Date: 01/04/2008
Public Authority: Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Summary: The complainant requested from HM Revenue & Customs the files of a group of companies, a pension fund and a trust of which he was once a director and trustee. This information has been withheld under section 44 of the Act (prohibitions on disclosure). The public authority has said that the relevant statutory prohibition is section 18(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue & Customs Act 2005. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and is satisfied that any information that the public authority holds, which falls within the scope of the request, is covered by the statutory prohibition and that the section 44 exemption applies. However the Commissioner has found that the public authority breached section 17(1) of the Act by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days and also breached section 17(1) of the Act by failing to adequately explain to the complainant why his request was being refused.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50148767