http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./RSSFeeds/DecisionNotices.aspx Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:20:35 GMT Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:02:22 GMT en Copyright 2006 Information Commissioner's Office Sitecore CMS: http://www.sitecore.net. Sitecore RSS module: Sitecore.Modules.RSS, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null The complainant requested information which, if held, would have included statements that had been provided by named nurses to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (the “NMC”) during its investigation of fitness to practise complaints. The public authority responded in accordance with the provision of section 1(1)(a) (it confirmed or denied it held the information requested). After considering the case, the Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was excluded from its duty to respond to the request under section 1(1)(a) by virtue of the provisions of section 40(5)(b)(i) because, in responding to the request, it had to disclose information which constitutes personal data of the named nurses. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps in relation to the complainant’s request. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50169734.pdf Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:02:22 GMT 6809aaf5-0cd1-498c-8180-f02112e07161 The complainant wrote to the Cabinet Office to request the disclosure of all correspondence between the then Prime Minister and his former strategy adviser Lord Birt between 1 November 2004 and 1 April 2005 together with a schedule of any such documents held. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose this information relying initially upon the exemption under section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act (Formulation of government policy). Upon internal review, the Cabinet Office upheld its decision placing reliance additionally upon the exemption under section 36 of the Act (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner upheld the decision of the Cabinet Office on the basis of the exemptions cited under sections 35 and 36 of the Act. However, he has concluded that the Cabinet Office should have disclosed the existence (but not the details) of Lord Birt’s informal role in senior staff appointments. The Commissioner has also found that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) of the Act (refusal notice) by not specifying its reliance upon section 36 in the original refusal notice issued to the complainant. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50111678.pdf Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:50:33 GMT a2c6fb18-6eca-4149-95af-a4fbe27c3585 The complainant requested that the Rural Payments Agency disclose information regarding the distribution of subsidies under the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy. The RPA ultimately relied on the exemption provided by regulation 13 of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner found that the legitimate interest in the processing of the third party data outweighed the legitimate interests of the data subjects. The Commissioner therefore upheld the complainant’s complaint and directed that the requested information be released. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fer_0112249.pdf Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:21:40 GMT dc524c62-fb30-415c-8ad6-1285db779e42 The complainant requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) as to whether there were any compliments or complaints recorded about a doctor employed by a third party. The DWP initially stated that it held no such information and later added that even if it were held by the third party on their behalf it would be exempt from disclosure by section 40(5) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that due to the contractual relationship between the DWP and the third party any relevant “complaints” (but not “compliment”) information held by the third party, if it existed, would be held by them on behalf of the DWP, by operation of section 3(2) of the Act. However, in accordance with section 40(5) of the Act, the DWP was correct to neither confirm nor deny the existence of the requested information as to do so would contravene data protection principles, but it was in breach of section 1(1)(a) in that it failed to inform the complainant of that. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50141015.pdf Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:06:05 GMT 1aa90506-f965-413b-8b75-8ac495f3c6ba The complainant requested a copy of a report detailing the findings of an audit carried out by the council on the Rochdale Centre of Diversity (the ‘RCD’), a charitable organisation based in Rochdale. The council carried out the audit due to allegations it received that funds were being mismanaged at the RCD. The council refused the complainant’s request on the basis that the exemptions in sections 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) and 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 30 and 36 of the Act do not apply. However he has decided that section 40 (personal data) does apply to the personal information of junior employees of the charity. The personal data of senior employees of the RCD is not exempt under section 40 other than a few sections which impact directly upon the private (as opposed to the public) lives of those individuals. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50144991.pdf Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:14:39 GMT f2fea24c-73cf-4a24-bf22-13b3f2ab1786 http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./Home/tools_and_resources/decision_notices/2008_11.aspx Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:00:47 GMT ca20709e-7d2e-41e3-95e2-dfde0293163d The complainant requested a number of pieces of information from HMRC about a particular trust and a particular company. HMRC refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 44(2) of the Act and its interaction with section 44(1)(a) of the Act and sections 18(1) and 23(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. The Commissioner has concluded that HMRC was correct to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner has concluded that by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days HMRC breached section 17(1) of the Act. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50202967.pdf Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:12:13 GMT 667dc663-b693-46c8-a48b-643d8b8f7dae The complainant requested copies of the information HMRC holds in relation to the civil action it instigated against KPMG concerning its administration of Leeds United, specifically the information formally served into the court. Although HMRC confirmed to the complainant that it held this information, it considered it to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 44(1)(a) of the Act because of the prohibition on disclosure provided by the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt on the basis of section 44(1)(a). However, the Commissioner has concluded that HMRC breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with a refusal notice within 20 working days of his request. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50181641.pdf Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:06:32 GMT c49193e7-e82a-4055-9a78-cc9f094be6b0 The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the Imperial College London (the “college”) for information relating to its admissions guidelines. After considering the case the Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested is not held by the college. The Commissioner considers that the request was not however dealt with in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the Act as the college did not clearly deny that any further information was held. Furthermore the Commissioner considers that section 10(1) of the Act was breached as the college did not comply with section 1(1)(a) within 20 working days of the request. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50180221.pdf Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:02:57 GMT 80096587-25d2-4dd7-b676-55751afe662a The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the General Medical Council (the “GMC”) for “all correspondence between the GMC, [named doctor] and his employers”. The GMC confirmed or denied whether it held that information under section 1(1)(a) of the Act. After considering the case, the Commissioner finds that the GMC was not obliged to respond under section 1(1) (a) by virtue of the provisions of section 40(5)(b)(i). This is because in responding to the request it has disclosed information which constitutes the personal data of the named doctor. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any further steps in relation to the complainant’s request. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50178633.pdf Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:57:56 GMT 56960a64-5d6a-431f-9d66-2e1d255d9fd8 The complaint submitted two requests to the British Museum, the first focusing on the ‘Parthenon Marbles’ and the second on the ‘Terracotta Army’. The British Museum provided some information in relation to these requests but relied on the exemptions contained at sections 22, 31, 36 and 43 of the Act to withhold the remainder of the information. With the exception of the application of section 22, the complainant asked the Commissioner to consider whether these exemptions had been applied correctly. With regard to the information relating to the first request the Commissioner has concluded that although three letters written by the Museum’s Director are exempt on the basis of section 36, the public interest favours withholding only two of these letters. With to the second request, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the British Museum suggested that it was now relying on section 12 of the Act to refuse to answer part of this request. The Commissioner has concluded that section 12 can be correctly relied upon and that some of the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 36 and 43 and that the public interest favours withholding this information. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that in respect of the remainder of the information covered by request two the exemptions contained at sections 31 and 43 of the Act are not engaged. Furthermore, the Commissioner has concluded that British Museum breached section 17(1)(b) by failing to state in its refusal notice the specific sub-sections of the exemptions it was relying on to refuse the complainant’s request as well as breaching all the requirements of section 17(5) by failing to provide a refusal notice citing section 12. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50169313.pdf Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:09:41 GMT fe178722-385a-4729-bee4-892045d2f485 The complainant requested a copy of a document which was used as an informal guide by some of the public authority’s staff to assist with decisions related to the recognition of overseas qualifications when recruiting students The public authority refused to disclose the document on the basis of the exemption contained in section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the Act. The Commissioner determined that section 43(2) was not applicable and ordered that the withheld information be disclosed to the complainant. He also found the public authority in breach of sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1). http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50163364.pdf Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:29:47 GMT 0acd6e26-16ac-40a7-b990-26b205af2e38 The complainant requested a copy of a draft purchase order relating to the compulsory purchase of his father’s land. The public authority wrote to the complainant requesting further information in order to determine if the information was held. Following receipt of this further information from the complainant the public authority wrote to the complainant confirming that the information requested was not held. The Commissioner has investigated and has determined that the requested information if held, would be environmental information and therefore the request should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner found that in accordance with regulation 3, the requested information is not held. However, the Commissioner found that BERR breached the requirements of regulation 10(1), 14(1), (2), (3) and (5) and 9(2). http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50159087.pdf Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:57:01 GMT b4987c5f-a5d4-44e8-a1f3-9ad6b4f79465 The complainant requested copies of correspondence to and from the (then) Department for Education and Skills (DFES) (now the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF)) concerning correspondence with him. The public authority provided some information, but withheld other information citing the exemption in section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner finds that the public authority was not obliged to comply with section 1(1) of the Act on the basis of the exemption contained at section 40(1) and (5). The Commissioner also found that the public authority had breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act by late disclosure of some of the requested information and by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days of receiving the request. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50156540.pdf Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:53:46 GMT 57225589-1704-42ff-af85-1bba80a63c25 The complainant requested copies of any evidence, which had not already been passed to her, in connection with an alleged speeding offence. This request ultimately became confined to the provision of a video tape which would show the recording of her alleged offence and all other motorists or pedestrians captured on the same footage. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 30(1)(a)(i) was appropriately applied and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He has not therefore considered the exemption at 40(2). The Commissioner also found that the public authority failed to respond to two earlier iterations of the request in breach of section 1(1). However he did not order any steps in relation to those requests as the decision notice deals with an identical request which was processed by the public authority under the Act. In relation to that request the Commissioner has found that the public authority breached sections 17(1)(b) and 17(3)(b). The latter breach was remedied at internal review and in view of the content of this decision notice the Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps in relation to the section 17 breaches. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50140994.pdf Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:47:59 GMT e9576815-9a4f-44f9-b06b-52976d57c31e On the 3 October 2005 the complainant requested information in relation to action taken by the Department of Constitutional Affairs now the Ministry of Justice (‘MOJ’) regarding judicial misconduct. The Ministry of Justice initially refused the information but did not give the complainant a reason under the Freedom of information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). They later released some information requested by the complainant but refused the remainder under section 12 (1) of the Act. The Commissioner concluded that the Ministry of Justice has breached section 10 (1), section 17 (5) and section 17 (7) in relation to their handling of this case, but have correctly applied section 12 (1) to the remaining information. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50117257.pdf Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:42:10 GMT 27f605bf-75f3-40a3-9938-afb2fd3c7a9b The complainant made a request for seven pieces of information relating to the Constabulary’s coat of arms and logo, the use of these; its policies regarding the recording of conversations; and for information about the Constabulary’s internet domain and service provider. The request was made during an on-going dispute between the complainant and Constabulary. During the course of the dispute members of the Constabulary were the subjects of several complaints. The complainant also made a significant number of information requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and the Data Protection Act. The Constabulary refused the complainant’s request under section 14 of the Act on the grounds that it was vexatious. It was drawn to this conclusion by the complainant’s stated intent to use the requested information to assist him in setting up a website publicising his grievances. The Commissioner has examined the complainant’s previous contact with the Constabulary. He considers that this request, together with the history of complaints and other information requests, constitutes a significant burden to the Constabulary. He also considers that the intent behind the request would have the effect of harassing the Constabulary. The Commissioner has concluded that the Constabulary’s application of section 14 was appropriate and does not uphold the complaint. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50157445.pdf Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:56:44 GMT a19327ba-1865-4163-9265-c0941d5b3b2d The complainant made 5 requests between April 2007 and June 2007 under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for information relating to the anti-depressant drug Seroxat. The MHRA deemed these requests vexatious in accordance with section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner considered these requests in the context and background in which they were made and has decided that the MHRA applied the Act correctly in refusing to comply with the requests under section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner has however found that the Trust breached section 17(5) of the Act as it did not state its reliance upon section 14(1) in relation to the requests labelled FOI 07/140 and FOI 07/142 within 20 working days of those requests being made. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50180689.pdf Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:16:27 GMT 410624fb-163f-4d65-afb7-56799157827b The complainant requested the full details of 22 non-safety recalls which were recorded on the public authority’s database in 2006. The public authority withheld the information by virtue of the exemptions contained in sections 41 and 43(2) of the Act. After considering the case, the Commissioner found that neither of the exemptions were engaged and ordered the public authority to disclose the requested information. He also found the public authority in breach of sections 1(1)(b), 17(1) and 17(3) of the Act. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50146033.pdf Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:53:05 GMT 69346094-f18a-466a-8993-12c5a544acdf The complainant requested information from the BBC regarding the number of TV detection devices, how often they are deployed and their technical specification. The BBC refused to disclose the information under Section 31(1) (a) (b) (d) and (g) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the information is exempt under section 31(1) (a) (b) and (g) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the information. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50154106.pdf Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:10:54 GMT c441b807-8467-4191-af61-4b27c48b3d6d The complainant submitted a series of requests to the National Audit Office (NAO) which were mainly focused on the origins of various figures contained in a value for money report into stroke care produced by the NAO. The complainant alleged that the NAO failed to respond to a number of these requests within 20 working days and that not all of the information falling within the scope of his requests was disclosed. The Commissioner has concluded that the NAO did not in fact hold any further information covered by the scope of most, but not all, of the requests. With regard the information that the Commissioner has established the NAO does hold but did not initially disclose to the complainant, the Commissioner has concluded that the NAO breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act by failing to disclose this information within 20 working days of receiving the requests. With regard to the requests where the Commissioner has concluded that the NAO does not hold any information, the NAO breached section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Act by failing to confirm or deny within 20 working days whether it held the information requested. During the course of this investigation the NAO argued that the further information which had been identified (a set of internal memos) was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 33. The Commissioner does not accept that section 33 is engaged in respect of the internal memos; however, during the closing stages of the Commissioner’s investigation the NAO provided this information to the complainant. In failing to provide the complainant with this information within 20 workings, the NAO committed a further breach of sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act. The public authority also failed to comply with section 17(1) by failing to provide a refusal notice citing section 33. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50180545.pdf Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:07:05 GMT 0d006566-4e4a-4e44-807b-9f2f5060554e The complainant requested a statement that had been provided by a named nurse to the public authority. The public authority responded in accordance with the provisions of section 1(1)(a) (it confirmed or denied it held the information requested). After considering the case, the Commissioner finds that the public authority was excluded from its duty to respond to the request under section 1(1)(a) by virtue of the provisions of section 40(5)(b)(i) (exclusion from the duty to confirm or deny a public authority holds third party personal data) because in responding to the request, it had to disclose information which constitutes the personal data of the named nurse. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps in relation to the complainant’s request. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50180310.pdf Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:03:40 GMT 91d35929-f5cc-4931-a793-f476126e7009 The complainant wrote to the Cabinet Office (“the public authority”) to request information regarding a Cabinet Committee that was formed in order to consider data sharing within the public sector. The public authority provided the complainant with some information but refused to disclose the minutes of meetings of the committee under section 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner considered the complaint and found that section 35 applies and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The public authority also refused to disclose the names of junior civil servants who attended the Committee by relying on section 40(2) of the Act and the Commissioner found that the public authority also correctly withheld this information. However, the Commissioner found that in its handling of the complainant’s request the public authority breached sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1) and 17(1)(c). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50177136.pdf Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:55:57 GMT ef7ca194-27b7-4d72-a2d1-096d17b4d499 The complainant requested details of the budget and operating costs of the council’s residential and nursing care homes. Some items of the requested information were supplied by the council but it withheld the operating costs by virtue of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the Act. The Commissioner decided that the exemption at section 43(2) was not engaged and ordered disclosure of the information. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50168782.pdf Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:24:21 GMT a2142ac8-d798-4929-8114-e39adb545a22 The complainant requested information about two investigations carried out by the public authority. In connection with the first of these, a 1970s fraud case, the Commissioner finds that the public authority is correct in stating that this information is not held, but that it breached section 1(1)(a) when earlier incorrectly suggesting that this information was held. In connection with the second of these, a 1980s murder investigation, the Commissioner finds that the public authority has applied the exemption provided by section 30(1) correctly. The Commissioner has also found that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Act in its handling of the request. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50127256.pdf Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:14:09 GMT e60ab0af-d151-4d33-840b-f4a4792dc1d2 The complainant asked the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) for information held about the Cheltenham Children’s Home in relation to decisions made to authorise the broadcast of parts of a CSCI report, and the relevant CSCI policy and procedures. The Commissioner’s decision is that CSCI did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the Act. Under section 10 of the Act, CSCI should have responded within 20 working days of the request having been made. This it failed to do by a wide margin, a failure which merits criticism. However the Commissioner noted, and welcomed, the apology by CSCI and the steps taken to ensure that future requests for information are dealt with faster. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50108683.pdf Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:11:11 GMT 91231875-4795-4905-8cbf-e39d9196a609 The complainant made a request to Belfast Improved Housing Association (“BIH”) under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) on 31 May 2006 for access to all documents held and produced by BIH in relation to the development of sites at Crumlin Road Methodist Church and 237-247 Tennent Street. BIH did not provide the information as it stated that Housing Associations were not public authorities for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that BIH is a public authority within the meaning of Regulation 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d)(i) of the EIR. This Decision Notice requires BIH to either provide the complainant with the requested information or to issue a formal refusal notice, stating which exceptions (if any) under the EIR it believes to be applicable. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fer_0152607.pdf Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:28:28 GMT 213dd54c-1a81-4d3f-957b-c4fdd628b36a The complainant made a request to Wesley Housing Association (“Wesley”) under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) for access to all documents held and produced by Wesley in relation to the development of sites at Crumlin Road Methodist Church and 237-247 Tennent Street. Wesley did not provide the information as it stated that Housing Associations were not public authorities for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that Wesley is a public authority within the meaning of Regulation 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d)(i) of the EIR. This Decision Notice requires Wesley to either provide the complainant with the requested information or to issue a formal refusal notice, stating which exceptions (if any) under the EIR it believes to be applicable. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fer_149772.pdf Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:18:55 GMT db5f179a-ff3a-4253-9b64-9d23adf4c7ad The complainant made over forty requests for information from the FSA regarding Halifax PLC and Halifax Insurance Ireland Limited. The FSA responded to most of the questions but initially refused to answer three of the requests under sections 21, 31, 43 and 44. During the course of the investigation the FSA explained that it was now seeking to withhold the information under section 12 as to locate and retrieve the information would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the FSA were correct to rely on section 12 to withhold the information, however in failing to inform the complainant of its reliance on this exemption in the refusal notice the FSA breached the requirements of section 17(5) of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal. http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50130697.pdf Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:28:49 GMT 7033c006-2760-45bf-8c2b-d5487eaf38e2 http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk./Home/tools_and_resources/decision_notices/2008_10.aspx Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:36:42 GMT 0de4d53d-7a74-47fd-beb0-dacc83e678a9