Case Ref: FS50132101
Date: 29/05/2008
Public Authority: Civil Aviation Authority
Summary: The complainant made a request for the names of the carriers and details of the investigation the public authority conducted in ten specific cases, and names of other carriers it was currently investigating for non-compliance with Council Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 which established common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers. The public authority withheld the information requested by virtue of the exemption contained in section 30(1)(b) and also relied on the exemption contained in section 31(1)(g) if the Commissioner did not consider section 30(1)(b) engaged. After considering the case, the Commissioner concluded section 30(1)(b) is engaged. He has however ordered the disclosure of the names of the carriers and details of the investigation (subject to specific redactions) in the ten specific cases, because the public interest factors in favour of maintaining the exemption do not outweigh those in favour of disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30- Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50132101
Case Ref: FS50156849
Date: 29/05/2008
Public Authority: Department for Transport
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the first draft of the Sir Rod Eddington Transport Study. This request was made to the Department for Transport (the “DfT”) and was made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). The DfT confirmed that it held a copy of the first draft of the report, but refused to disclose it, citing sections 12, 35 and 36 of the Act. The DfT also stated that it believed that the report contained some environmental information, and it withheld this information under exception 12(4)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). After considering the withheld information the Commissioner has decided that the whole of the draft report is environmental information and as such falls under the EIR. During the course of the investigation the DfT cited the exceptions listed at regulations 4(1)(a), 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) in order to withhold the information. After considering the case the Commissioner decided that regulation 12(4)(d) was not engaged. He also found that regulation 12(4)(e) was not engaged and that regulation 4(1)(a) did not provide an exception from disclosure. Therefore the Commissioner decided that the information in question should be disclosed. The Commissioner also found that the DfT had not met the requirements of regulation 14. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50156849
Case Ref: FS50144371
Date: 29/05/2008
Public Authority: Doncaster College
Summary: The complainant requested information from Doncaster College relating to any investigation reports it holds concerning the conduct or financial issues relating to its senior managers over a four year period. The college refused this request under section 40(3) of the Freedom of information Act 2000. The Commissioner has concluded that the college should have cited section 40(2) of the Act. In failing to do so it breached section 17(1)(b) however he has not ordered any remedial steps in this regard. He considers that the requested information is the personal data of the subjects of various investigation reports, and of other data subjects. He has determined that disclosure of the reports would be unfair and therefore would breach the first data protection principle and has ordered no steps to be taken in this matter.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40- Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50144371
Case Ref: FS50137686
Date: 27/05/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant requested information held by the Cabinet Office relating to his correspondence on an earlier matter. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose this under section 36(2)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the exemption at section 36 of the Act is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to disclose the withheld information within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50137686
Case Ref: FS50134744
Date: 27/05/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for the contents of a file ‘PREM 8/928’ listed in the National Archives catalogue, which he believed dealt with United States Air Force facilities in the United Kingdom in 1948. In fact the file contained information about an entirely different issue, but the complainant indicated that he wanted to pursue the matter. The public authority concluded that all of the information was exempt under one or both of sections 23 and 27(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner accepted the assurance of an independent senior official that most of the withheld information fell within section 23, but required the public authority to disclose some information to which it had applied section 27 alone.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50134744
Case Ref: FS50182559
Date: 27/05/2008
Public Authority: Child Support Agency
Summary: The complainant requested a number of statistics from the Child Support Agency (CSA). The CSA responded informing the complainant that the information sought is not held. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the CSA responded in accordance with the requirements of section 1 of the Act as he is satisfied that the information requested is not held.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50182559
Case Ref: FS50167292
Date: 27/05/2007
Public Authority: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for the size, exact position and date of ‘restriction’ of particular plots of ‘restricted’ land. The public authority’s response was made under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘EIR’). It stated that it had addressed part of the request on a previous occasion, and since it did not hold the requested information the exception in Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applied. The Commissioner decided that the public authority’s response was reasonable, but that it had failed to issue its decision within the time limit set out in Regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50167292
Case Ref: FER50092316
Date: 27/05/2008
Public Authority: Department for Transport
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to Luton Airport and the South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study (“SERAS”). Specifically he requested any information provided to Ministers as a basis for decisions on which options to take forward for Luton Airport for appraisal in stage two of the SERAS study, together with any records of the Ministers’ decisions and the reasons for them. The Department for Transport (the “DfT”) refused to disclose the information and cited section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). During the investigation of the case the Commissioner informed the DfT that the withheld information was environmental information, and should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the “EIR”). Subsequently the DfT informed the Commissioner that it was relying upon regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to withhold the information in question. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the exception was engaged, but that the public interest in maintaining the exception did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure, and therefore the withheld information should be disclosed. The Commissioner also decided that the DfT had not met the requirements of regulation 14(3)(a) and (b).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER50092316
Case Ref: FER0088851
Date: 27/05/2008
Public Authority: Department for Transport
Summary: The complainant requested information held by the public authority in relation to the proposal for the development of a second runway at Stansted Airport. The public authority provided some information but initially withheld other information under section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It subsequently sought to rely on regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(b)(course of justice) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner decided that the public authority correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the information it argued was covered by this exception. However, he decided that it incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to the remaining information and ordered that it be disclosed to the complainant. He also found that the public authority had not complied with regulation 14(3) as it failed to state in its refusal notice that regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) were applicable to the withheld information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12 – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0088851
Case Ref: FS50161274
Date: 27/05/2008
Public Authority: Leeds City Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the council about “Innovation Leeds”, a team in the council’s Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Department. He further requested information on the relationship between Innovation Leeds and Destiny Wireless (“Destiny”), a private company which entered into an agreement with the council to jointly provide and sell digital pens, equipment and related services to other public authorities. The council refused the request on the basis that sections 43 (commercial interests) and 41 (information provided in confidence) applied. The council also claimed section 40 (personal data) as regards information on the funding of Innovation Leeds. The Commissioner's decision is that the council was able to withhold information about the contract it has agreed with Destiny under section 43, but that some information it held on the funding of Innovation Leeds was not able to be withheld under the exemption in section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner has considered the application of section 41 to information which does not fall within the other exemptions. His view is that it is not applicable as the information was generated by the council and not provided to it by “another person”.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50161274
Case Ref: FS50140478
Date: 22/05/2008
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant submitted to two requests to the BBC, the first seeking the total budgets of three BBC shows (Top Gear, Eastenders and Newsnight) and the second seeking the costs of BBC advertisements. The BBC refused to provide the information covered by both requests on the basis that it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. Having considered the circumstances of this case the Commissioner has concluded that the BBC has misapplied the Schedule I derogation and that all of the information covered the complainant’s requests falls within the scope of the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation the BBC argued, without prejudice to its position on the derogation, that the information covered by the first request was exempt on the basis of section 43(2). The Commissioner has considered the BBC’s arguments and concluded that the information is not exempt on the basis of section 43(2). The Commissioner has ordered the BBC to disclose this information. The BBC also argued that some of the information covered the second request was not held and the remainder of the information was also exempt under section 43(2). With regard to the second request the Commissioner agrees that the some of the requested information is not in fact held by the BBC and that the remainder of the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Upheld, FOI 43 – Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50140478
Case Ref: FER0147464
Date: 22/05/2008
Public Authority: Hampshire County Council
Summary: The complainant asked the council for copies of reports written by the River Hamble Harbour Authority staff. The council withheld the requested information under regulations 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable), 12(4)(d) (material still in the course of completion), 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 13(1) (personal data). The Commissioner found that the council had incorrectly applied the exceptions at 12(4)(b), 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e) and 13(1) to the information. A proportion of the information is excepted under 13(1). The Commissioner also found that the council breached regulations 5)2) and 14(4). After the Commissioner informed the council that he was minded to order disclosure, the authority released some of the withheld information. The Commissioner decided that the remainder should also be released after redaction of third party personal data.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Upheld, EIR14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0147464
Case Ref: FS50107607
Date: 22/05/2008 Ministry of Defence
Public Authority: The complainant asked for information held within a Summary: Ministry of Defence (MOD) computerised database at a specified date. The Commissioner found that MOD had acted correctly in refusing the request under section 12 of the Act as the appropriate limit would have been exceeded. He also found that MOD was in breach of its duty under section 16 of the Act to advise and assist the applicant. The Commissioner requires MOD to provide further advice and assistance to the applicant. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50107607
Case Ref: FS50137475
Date: 19/05/2008
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant requested from the BBC information related to the use and effectiveness of television detector vans. The BBC refused to disclose the information relying on sections 31 and 42. The Commissioner has investigated and found that section 31 is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50137475
Case Ref: FS50133250
Date: 19/05/2008
Public Authority: Caerphilly County Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to individuals excluded from schools within the local authority area as a result of drug finds. Some information was provided, but the public authority refused to provide information at individual school level, citing the exemption at section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority applied the Act appropriately in withholding the information requested by virtue of the exemption at section 40.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50133250
Case Ref: FS50162459
Date: 19/05/2008
Public Authority: Cardiff County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to individuals excluded from schools in the local authority area as a result of drug finds. Some information was provided, but the authority refused to provide information at individual school level, citing the exemption at section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority applied the Act appropriately in withholding the information requested by virtue of the exemption at section 40. However, the Commissioner also finds that the public authority breached the requirements of section 17 in refusing the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40- Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50162459
Case Ref: FS50130239
Date: 19/05/2008
Public Authority: Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to individuals excluded from schools in the local authority area as a result of drug finds. Some information was provided, but the authority refused to provide information at individual school level, citing the exemption at section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority applied the Act appropriately in withholding the information requested by virtue of the exemption at section 40. However, the Commissioner also finds that the authority breached the requirements of section 17 of the Act in refusing the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50130239
Case Ref: FS50188669
Date:
14/05/2008
Public Authority: National Offender Management Service
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the Office of Surveillance Commissioner inspection of HM Prison Service. The public authority replied that section 31(1)(f) (maintenance of security and good order in prisons) was engaged and that it would carry out a public interest determination within a target timeframe. The Commissioner finds that section 17(1)(c) was breached at this point as the public authority failed to inform the complainant why the exemption was engaged. The timeframe was readjusted on three separate occasions before the complainant complained to the Commissioner. The Commissioner finds a delay of over six months in carrying out a public interest determination a breach of section 17(3) to be unreasonable. The public authority is required to issue a notice explaining why section 31(1)(f) is engaged and where it believes the balance of the public interest lies. If the public authority concludes that the balance of the public interest favours disclosing the information or no longer considers the exemption to apply, the information should be provided to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50188669
Case Ref: FS50121390
Date: 14/05/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant requested a full list of all those who met with the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street in June 2005. The Cabinet Office disclosed some information but withheld the information relating to internal meetings with ministerial colleagues under sections 35 and 36. The Commissioner has investigated the application of both exemptions and finds that they are not engaged in relation to the information requested. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclosure the information withheld under section 35 and 36 within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50121390
Case Ref: FS50163794
Date: 12/05/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant submitted a request for information held by the Cabinet Office about the so-called ‘Shrewsbury Two’. The Cabinet Office explained that a file originating in the Cabinet Office relating to papers about the ‘Shrewsbury Two’ had been transferred to the National Archives and is open and available for inspection. The Cabinet Office also explained that it has retained a small amount of information, but it considered this information exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office were correct to withhold this information on the basis of section 23.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 23 –Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50163794
Case Ref: FS50090742
Date:12/05/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant requested ‘the assessment by the Joint Intelligence Committee of Iraq’s declaration of its weapons of mass destruction in December 2002’. The public authority withheld the information under sections 23(1) and 24(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). As a result of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority reviewed its original decision and decided to release the information previously withheld under section 24. The Commissioner accepted an assurance from a senior official that the remaining information had been received from or related to bodies listed in section 23(1) and that it was therefore exempt under section 23(1). The Commissioner therefore required no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI- 23 Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50090742
Case Ref: FS50132098
Date: 01/05/2008
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Ministry of Justice (formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs) to request information relating to a case heard at Coventry County Court, including a report which she believed had been produced in response to a complaint she had made about the court’s handling of the case. The public authority refused the request under section 32 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has found that the public authority does not hold a report regarding the complaint about the handling of the court case. The Commissioner is satisfied that any other requested information held by the public authority is exempt under section 32 of the Act. The Commissioner also found that the public authority breached section 10 of the Act in its handling of the request but requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 32 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 10- Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50132098
Case Ref: FS50150598
Date: 01/05/2008
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant requested from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) a copy of the advice given to the Minister to issue an exhumation licence in principle for George Kelly; a copy of all communications with the National Offenders Management Service (NOMS) regarding this matter; and the records in relation to communications with a named individual. MoJ provided a copy of some of the communications with the individual but refused to disclose the advice to the Minister under section 36 of the Act and a record of a telephone conversation with the individual under section 40 and 41 of the Act. The Commissioner’s investigation found that the MoJ had failed to respond to part of the request (the communications with NOMS) in breach of the requirements of section 1(1). The Commissioner also found that refusal notice was in breach of the requirements of section 17(1) of the Act. The Commissioner found that the advice to the Minister was not exempt under section 36(2)(b) of the Act as the public interest favours disclosure of the information. However, he did find that the advice to the Minister was the personal data of a third party and therefore exempt under section 40(2). He also agreed that the note of the telephone conversation was exempt under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the MoJ to respond to the outstanding part of the complainant’s request within 35 calendar days. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40- Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50150598