Please find below all the decision notices released by the ICO in 2005, organised by month:
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
February
December
Case Ref: FS50090698
Date: 21/12/05
Public Authority: Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning submissions made to the Scott Inquiry. The DTI stated that they did not hold the information in uestion and that they are not the primary holders of the information relating to the Scott Inquiry. The Commissioner accepted these arguments and this aspect of the complaint was not upheld. The complainant also stated that the information requested was not addressed within 20 working days. The DTI stated that they did not receive the initial request, but did comply within 20 working days of their receipt of a further copy of the request. In the absence of evidence to suggest that the initial request was received, the Commissioner accepted the representations of the DTI and this aspect of the complaint was not upheld. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld; FOI s.10 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50090698
Case Ref: FS50076645
Date: 19/12/05
Public Authority: London Borough of Newham Council
Summary: The complainant requested information about an application under the Right to Buy scheme with regard to a specific property. The Council failed to respond within 20 working days and this aspect of the complaint has been upheld. The second aspect of the complaint was that copies of information relating to the property in question and held by the Council were not provided to the complainant. The aspect of the complaint has not been upheld because the information request was in the form of a question and it made no reference to the provision of specific documentation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld; FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50076645
Case Ref: FS50074187
Date: 19/12/05
Public Authority: Northamptonshire Police
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning the number of tickets issued in connection with specific speed cameras. Initially the police refused to disclose the information requested but did not apply a specific exemption to the request. Following the intervention of the Information Commissioner the information was disclosed. The Commissioner finds that the police breached the Act by withholding information requested and by failing to issue an adequate refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50074187
Case Ref: FS50067399
Date: 16/12/05
Public Authority: London Borough of Camden
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to the Council for information relating to the Parking Enforcement Statistics. The Council advised that in order to provide all the information requested there would be a charge of £703.60, which the complainant felt excessive. However, having investigated this matter the Commissioner is satisfied that the charges have been calculated in accordance with the FOI Fees Regulations.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.9 - Complainant Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50067399
Case Ref: FS50083666
Date: 16/12/05
Public Authority: Richmondshire District Council
Summary: The complainant requested copies of various payment orders and commercial calculations that he believed were held by the Council. The Council informed the complainant that they did not hold the information; however, the complainant maintained the information did exist. Having investigated this matter the Information Commissioner if satisfied that the Council does not hold the information requested.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50083666
Case Ref: FS50070183
Date: 15/12/05
Public Authority: Richmondshire District Council
Summary: The complainant requested details of the legal opinion on which the Council based its policy of noise control relating Croft motor racing circuit, and copies of correspondence between the Council and counsel relating to that advice. The Council refused to release the advice citing the exemption provided by section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has agreed that section 42(1) was applied correctly to the information sought by the complainant, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.42 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50070183
Case Ref: FS50083896
Date: 13/12/05
Public Authority: John Willmott School
Summary: On 23/05/05 the complainant requested the minutes of meetings at which the incumbent Chair of Governors was appointed and confirmation of the duration of the post. The school wrote to the complainant on 13/06/05 and confirmed the duration of the post but did not communicate the relevant minutes of meetings. Following intervention of the Information Commissioner, the school sent, by letter dated 9/11/05, the information requested.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50083896
Case Ref: FS50079476
Date: 13/12/05
Public Authority: Swindon Borough Council
Summary: The complaint requested the minutes of meetings held by working groups set up as part of the sub-regional study for Swindon. The Council did not respond within 20 working days and when they did respond stated that the specified information could not be supplied because "it would not be in the public interest and would be prejudicial to public administration." The Commissioner informed the Council that this response did not fulfil the criteria for refusal notices set out in section 17 of the Act. Following the Commissioner's intervention, the Council issued a response to the complainant which complied with section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50079476
Case Ref: FS50078267
Date: 12/12/05
Public Authority: Oadby and Wigston Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning a planning application, specifically "why five Councillors did not vote or abstain" in the meeting in which the planning application was discussed. Oadby and Wigston Borough Council informed the complainant that they did not hold the information, however the complainant maintained the information did exist. The Commissioner is satisfied that Oadby and Wigston Borough Council do not hold this information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50078267
Case Ref: FS50073296
Date: 09/12/05
Public Authority: Bridgend County Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a food hygiene inspection report for a local hotel. Bridgend CBC refused the request, citing section 31 of the Act ('law enforcement'). The Council argued that it promotes an informal approach to inspections, and disclosure of this type of information would be detrimental to the relationship between the Council's inspectors and businesses. This in turn would result in prejudice to the exercise of the Council's regulatory functions under the Food Safety Act, and would therefore not be in the public interest. The Commissioner decided that the Council has not demonstrated prejudice and therefore the exemption at section 31 was applied inappropriately in this case. Accordingly, the Commissioner requires the Council to provide the information requested to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.31 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50073296
Case Ref: FAC0085364
Date: 8/12/05
Public Authority: Social Security Agency (SSA)
Summary: On 12/06/05 the complainant requested information on the SSA's quality management processes. This information was provided on 03/08/05, exceeding the 20 working day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FAC0085364
Case Ref: FS50089177
Date: 08/12/05
Public Authority: South and East Belfast Health and Social Services Trust
Summary: On 01/08/05 the complainant requested information relating to her mother's care, and a complaint made against the Trust by herself. This information was not provided until 04/11/05, exceeding the 20 day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50089177
Case Ref: FS50093281
Date: 08/12/05
Public Authority: University of Ulster
Summary: On 30/05/05 the complainant requested financial information on the University's swimming, diving and hydrotherapy pools. This information was not provided until 07/11/05, exceeding the 20 working day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50093281
Case Ref: FS50070880
Date: 07/12/05
Public Authority: Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Trust relating to the date on which its policy for handling vexatious complaints was introduced, and also the location of other information provided was not that which he had requested. The Commissioner has found the response of the public authority did provide the complainant with the information requested. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50070880
Case Ref: FS50087297
Date: 07/12/05
Public Authority: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
Case Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the inspection of a children's play area. The Council provided some of the information; however, they were unable to locate the relevant reports for two specific weeks and explained this to the applicant. In addition they stated that they would not continue to search for the relevant reports. The complainant did not receive the outstanding information and so re-iterated his initial request. Following an investigation and internal review by the Council, it was found that inspections were not carried out on the weeks in question and so there was no further information to provide. The Commissioner is satisfied with the assurances of the public authority that the outstanding information was not held.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complainant Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50087297
Case Ref: FS50066390
Date: 05/12/05
Public Authority: London Borough of Lewisham
Summary: The complainant requested copies of letters sent to the Council in 2003 detailing allegations of blackmail. The Council had supplied some of the information, refusing the remainder on the basis that the information contained third party data. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, the Council revisited their initial decision and chose to release more of the information. The complainant was satisfied with this but asked the Commissioner to investigate the technical breaches which had occurred when the complainant originally requested the information. The Commissioner found that the Council had not issued a proper refusal notice under section 17 and consequently had breached the twenty working day limit in which to respond.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 Complaint Upheld: FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50066390
Case Ref: FS50083727
Date: 07/12/05
Public Authority: Llandudno Town Council
Summary: The complainant requested information regarding the costs and receipts of all matters to do with the Town Twinning arrangements for the year 1 April 2004 until 31 March 2005. The Town Council provided this information but did so outside the 20 working day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 Complaint Upheld.
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50083727
Case Ref: FS50073291
Date: 7/12/05
Public Authority: Cardiff County Council (CCC)
Summary: On 28/01/05 the complainant requested documents relating to the National School for Children with Cerebral Palsy. In its response, dated 07/03/05, CCC stated that it was necessary to consider the public interest in relation to this request, citing the exemption at section 36 of the Act, and indicated that it expected to be able to provide the outcome of their consideration of the public interest by 18/03/05. CCC neither advised the complainant of a decision nor released the information by 13/03/05 and still has not done so at the date of issuing the Decision Notice, despite the Commissioner's intervention. The Commissioner requires CCC to provide the complainant with either the information requested or a notice detailing why it is in the public interest to withhold or not confirm whether they hold the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50073291
Case Ref: FS50094879
Date: 06/12/05
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence (MoD)
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the evidence on which a statement (made to the complainant in May 2003) was based. He also requested that the MoD seek a new legal opinion in connection with that statement. The Commissioner is satisfied that the MoD do not hold the requested information. The Commissioner is further satisfied that the MoD provided advice and assistance as far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so when they provided the complainant with extracts from the legislation on which the May 2003 statement was based and an explanation of their interpretation of the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld; FOI s.16 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50094879
Case Ref: FS50084406
Date: 05/12/05
Public Authority: Melton Borough Council
Summary: The complaint was that the Council failed to respond to the information request within 20 working days. The Commissioner upheld this complaint. No further action was required to be taken by the Council in connection with this specific matter as the information request was responded to, albeit outside the 20 working days time limit. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and had upheld this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50084406
Case Ref: FS50080313
Date: 01/12/05
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence (MoD)
Summary:The complainant requested her late father's full naval service and medical records. The MoD provided, albeit late, the certificate of service and attestation pack. The medical records had earlier been provided to the complainant's mother and the complainant stated that she did not want duplicates of the same information and so this was not provided. The complainant contends that the full service and medical records were not provided. The MoD contend that they have provided all of the information which they hold and that typically, for Royal Marines serving between 1938 and 1948, they would not hold any further information. The Commissioner is satisfied with the assurances provided by the MoD. The Commissioner's decision is that the MoD has provided all the information held in relation to the request but failed to do so within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 Complaint Not Upheld; FOI s.10 Complaint Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50080313
November
Case Ref: FS50074966
Date: 30/11/05
Public Authority: East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC)
Summary: The applicant requested information regarding the Hornsea Rail Trail and received a partial response within the statutory period of twenty working days. When the complainant pursued the failure of ERYC to provide all of the information, the request was widened further on two occasions. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, ERYC provided a full response to the information request, however the Commissioner has decided that by virtue of the fact that they failed to provide the information requested within twenty working days a breach has occurred.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50074966Case Ref: FS50080052
Date: 30/11/05
Public Authority: Kirklees Metropolitan Council
Summary: The complainant sought information relating to the cost to the Council to dismiss him and to defend the dismissal at an Employment Tribunal. The Council responded but did not provide all of the information requested or indicate to the complainant that it did not hold the outstanding information. The complainant wrote to the Commissioner seeking a decision on this. The Commissioner's intervention resulted in the Council providing further information held in relation to the request; however the information was not supplied within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50080052
Case Ref: FS50067984
Date: 30/11/05
Public Authority: Thanet District Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the legal advice to the Council on the legal implications of night flights from Kent International Airport (also known as Manston Airport). The Council refused access to the document citing s.42 which exempts information subject to legal professional privilege. The Commissioner determined that the document was privileged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption and therefore protecting the principle of legal professional privilege outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.42 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50067984
Case Ref: FS50069727
Date: 30/11/05
Public Authority: Thanet District Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the legal advice to the Council on the legal implications of night flights from Kent International Airport (also known as Manston Airport). The Council refused access to the document citing s.42 which exempts information subject to legal professional privilege. The Commissioner determined that the document was privileged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption and therefore protecting the principle of legal professional privilege outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.42 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50069727
Case Ref: FS50080366
Date: 30/11/05
Public Authority: Thanet District Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the legal advice to the Council on the legal implications of night flights from Kent International Airport (also known as Manston Airport). The Council refused access to the document citing s.42 which exempts information subject to legal professional privilege. The Commissioner determined that the document was privileged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption and therefore protecting the principle of legal professional privilege outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.42 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50080366
Case Ref: FS50066054
Date: 30/11/05
Public Authority: The Post Office Limited
Summary: The complainant made a request for information about the standard of customer service at a branch of the Post Office in Clapham. The Post Office refused the request on the basis that the majority of the information which had been requested was not held and that the information they did hold was exempt under section 43 in that its disclosure would be prejudicial to the Post Office's and others commercial interests. The Commissioner decided that the exemption had been correctly applied. This is because the information included public relations and marketing strategies which could be copied and used by the Post Office's commercial rivals in their own businesses. The public interest rests in preserving a level playing field for the commercial activities the Post Office is engaged in. The Commissioner is also satisfied with the Post Office's assurances that they do not hold any further information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.43 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50066054
Case Ref: FS50071313
Date: 30/11/05
Public Authority: Warrington Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested the full accounts of the taxi licensing office for the last 5 years. The Council failed to respond within 20 working days and in their eventual response stated that clarification of the request was required before the information could be provided. The rationale for this was not made clear to either the complainant or, subsequently, the Commissioner. This Decision Notice requires that the Council provide either the information requested or a valid reason for why this information cannot be provided.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50071313
Case Ref: FS50072719
Date: 29/11/05
Public Authority: British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL)
Summary: Information was requested about the sums of money spent by BNFL on various measures relating to public relations and corporate social responsibility. BNFL failed to respond to this request within 20 working days. The response to the information request stated that to provide all the information requested would have incurred costs exceeding the limit of £450. No information was provided as to how the cost estimate had been formed or how the complainant could refine their request so that it would be possible to comply without exceeding the cost limit. Therefore this Decision Notice also concludes that BNFL has failed in its duty to provide advice and assistance. As the request was responded to, albeit not within the 20 working days limit, and as the BNFL has since responded to a refined information request made by the complainant, the Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken by BNFL.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI s.16 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50072719
Case Ref: FS50066308
Date: 29/11/05
Public Authority: Cyngor Sir Gâr (Carmarthenshire County Council)
Summary:The complainant requested detailed information from the Council about all its vehicles currently registered with DVLA and those it had sold. The information requested included, amongst other things, information about vehicle identification numbers (VINs), vehicle registration marks (VRMs), fleet numbers, make and model types and type of body. The Council withheld some information under section 31 of the Act on the basis that its disclosure would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. The Council issued a refusal notice to the complainant that did not include the public interest test. The Commissioner decided that the Council had applied section 31 correctly only in relation to some of the information. The Commissioner also found that the original refusal notice had not complied with section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.31 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50066308
Case Ref: FS50067004
Date: 29/11/05
Public Authority: Oxford City Council (OCC)
Summary: The complainant requested information about all OCC vehicles currently registered with DVLA and those that had been sold including vehicle identification numbers (VINs), vehicle registration marks (VRMs), fleet numbers, make and model types and type of body. The OCC withheld all the information requested relying on section 31 of the Act. Section 31 exempts from disclosure that information which would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. The Commissioner decided that OCC had applied section 31 correctly in relation to the information concerning VINs as disclosure to the public would be likely to increase the risk of the information being used for vehicle cloning and therefore would not be in the public interest. However, the Commissioner disagrees with the application of section 31 with regard to the other information requested and therefore requires that this is provided to the complainant. In addition the Commissioner decided that OCC had not complied with the requirements of section 17 of the Act in relation to the refusal notice it had issued because no consideration of the public interest was included. The Commissioner decided that OCC had not complied with the requirements of section 16 of the Act, the duty to provide advice and assistance, in relation to the modified request. Both the complainant and the Council have now lodged an appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.31 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI s.16 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50067004
Case Ref: FS50070222
Date: 28/11/05
Public Authority: The Security Industry Authority (SIA)
Summary: The complainant twice made a specific request for information from the SIA, who did not respond within 20 working days. In addition, it did not respond fully to the specific requests, instead duplicating information readily available on its website. Therefore, the SIA have also failed to provide advice and assistance to the complainant, in breach of s.16 of the Act. However, the SIA did later provide the information requested so the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld; s.16 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FAC0070222
Case Ref: FS50075959
Date: 25/11/05
Public Authority: Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Summary: On 28/03/05 the complainant submitted a request to the CPS, in 23 parts, concerning a particular type of speed camera. The complainant made a further request for information on 20/04/05. The CPS did not respond until 03/10/05, outside of the statutory time limit, when it provided a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Given that this response has been given, the Information Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of the Act/EIR and Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50075959
Case Ref: FS50075953
Date: 25/11/05
Public Authority: London Borough of Brent
Summary: The complainant made a request for several pieces of information relating to the disposal of a property leased from Brent Council, including 2 particular letters. Brent Council informed the complainant that they were unable to supply the two letters because it did not hold them, although the complainant maintained that these letters were in their possession. However, investigations by this office have found that there is no evidence to support this claim and the Commissioner is satisfied that the London Borough of Brent do not hold these letters. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50075953
Case Ref: FS50088092
Date: 25/11/05
Public Authority: Newcastle City Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the funding of the Tyne and Wear Anti-Fascist Association. The request was refused on the grounds of exceeding the cost limit, so the complainant modified his request and this was again refused on cost grounds. Whilst the Commissioner is of the opinion that the Council was correct in this assessment, the Council could have offered more advice and guidance to the complainant. The Decision Notice requires the Council to offer further advice and guidance to the complainant in order to ascertain whether the request could be modified so that the cost limit would not be exceeded.
Section of the Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.12 - Complaint Not Upheld; s.16 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50088092
Case Ref: FS50071182
Date: 25/11/05
Public Authority: Cardiff County Council.
Summary: The Complainant requested information relating to a landfill site on 4/3/05. Even after the intervention of this Office, the Council has not responded to the request. The Decision Notice requires the Council to respond to the request within 30 days of the Decision Notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Findings: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50071182
Case Ref: FS50068019
Date: 25/11/05
Public Authority: The Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise (The Adjudicator's Office)
Summary: The complainant made an information request to the Adjudicator's Office relating to the Adjudicator's Office Service Level Agreement. The information was not provided because the Adjudicator's Office said that it did not hold any of the requested details, a view the complainant challenged. The complainant also believed that the Adjudicator's Office should have provided him with advice and assistance under s.16 of the Act that would have allowed him to frame his request in such a way that he would have received the information. After investigation the Commissioner is satisfied with the assurances of the Adjudicator's Office that the requested information is not held and that adequate advice and assistance was provided. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and had upheld this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld; s.16 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50068019
Case Ref: FS50082228
Date: 24/11/05
Public Authority: South Stoke Parish Council
Summary: On 26/3/05 the complainant requested information held by South Stoke Parish Council relating to the Fullers Earth Site, covering the period from 1/8/03 to the present day. The Council sent responses on 20/4/05, 1/6/05 and 4/6/05. In these responses, the Council did not confirm or deny whether the information specified in the request was held, communicate the information specified in the request or refuse to provide the information specified in the request for valid reasons as set out in the Act. Following the intervention of the Commissioner’s Office the Council communicated the information specified in the request on 25/10/05.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - complaint upheld, FOI 10 – complaint upheld, FOI 17 – complaint upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50082228
Case Ref: FS50068973
Date:24/11/05
Public Authority: Calderdale Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Council relating to the recruitment of social workers from Australia and New Zealand. Some of the information requested by the complainant was released but the Council declined to disclose the names of the officers who went abroad, citing section 40 (personal data). It also refused to disclose other details citing section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner decided that the names of the officers did constitute personal data but disclosing those names would not breach any of the data protection principles, therefore the exemption provided by section 40 (2) was not applicable in this case. In relation to section 42 the Commissioner decided the legal advice was covered by legal professional privilege but in this case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.40 - Complaint Upheld; s.42 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50068973
Case Ref: FS50066050
Date: 24/11/05
Public Authority: Chief Officer of Northamptonshire Police ("Northants Police")
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to speeding offences recorded by the speed camera at Kelmarsh on the A508. Northants Police refused to provide this information citing the Section 31 (prejudice to Law Enforcement) and Section 38 (Health and Safety) exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act duty to disclose. Northants Police further argued that the public interest in maintaining these exemptions outweighed the public interest in disclosing the requested information. The Commissioner agrees with the exemptions applied in this case and has considered the public interest arguments. It is believed that there is a stronger public interest in this case in maintaining the two exemptions cited. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 38 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50066050
Case Ref: FS50074578
Date: 24/11/05
Public Authority: Department of Trade and Industry
Summary: The complainant requested copies of various bankruptcy orders, to which the public authorities informed the complainant that the information was not held. The Commissioner is satisfied that this was communicated to the complainant and furthermore, that the duty to advise and assist under section 16 was adhered to.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50074578
Case Ref: FS50065750
Date:24/11/05
Public Authority: Department of Work and Pensions
Summary: The complainant made a number of requests for information from the Child Support Agency (CSA) - part of the Department of Work and Pensions - on three separate dates. The complainant alleged that the CSA failed to provide him with all the information requested and that the information was not provided within 20 working days. The Commissioner has decided that two of these requests were in fact requests for his own personal data and therefore exempt under section 40(1) of the Act. A request was also made for a copy of the CSA's publication scheme which the Commissioner has decided is accessible by other means and therefore exempt under section 21 of the Act. The Commissioner also considers that one of the questions was not a valid FOI request. However, the CSA did fail to respond to one of the complainant's requests within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld; FOI s.10 Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50065750
Case Ref: FS50068389
Date:24/11/05
Public Authority: Greater Manchester Police (GMP)
Summary: The complainant requested details of policies in place at GMP. The request was not responded to by GMP until the Information Commissioner's Office made contact and a response was sent thereafter. A Decision Notice was therefore issued with regard to GMP's failure to respond within the statutory 20 working day period.
Section of Act & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50068389
Case Ref: FS50073295
Date: 24/11/05
Public Authority: Great Ness and Little Ness Parish Council
Summary: The complainant requested copies of Parish Council minutes and Newsletters. The Parish Council provided these but did so outside the 20 working day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50073295
Case Ref: FS50084412
Date: 24/11/05
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Home Office on 9/3/05 to request a copy of a particular review. The Home Office sent acknowledgement letters on 23/3/05 and 16/5/05, however, they failed within the statutory 20 working day limit to; confirm or deny whether the specified information was held, communicate the specified information and/or issue a notice refusing to provide the specified information. In not correctly notifying the complainant of the need for an extension to the time limit to answer the request, the Home office is found to be in breach of section 10 and section 17. A final response to the request was made on 10/11/05, where some information was provided and other items were withheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50084412
Case Ref: FS50068396
Date: 24/11/05
Public Authority: Nottingham City Council
Summary: The complainant requested minutes of a meeting and copies of any documents referred to in those minutes. The Council did not respond within 20 working days of receipt of the request. Whilst the complainant did later receive the documents, they included a report that had information redacted. He was not provided with a Refusal Notice explaining why the information had been withheld. As the Council failed to comply with sections 10 (time for compliance) and 17 (refusal notice), the Commissioner has upheld the complaint that the Council did not respond within the prescribed time limit and required the Council to either provide the information or a compliant Refusal Notice within 30 days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50068396
Case Ref: FS50072311
Date:24/11/05
Public Authority: Royal Mail Plc
Summary:The complainant requested information about street storage boxes, specifically the location of those broken into in Glasgow in the last year. Royal Mail responded to the applicant stating that the information is exempt from disclosure under section 30 (Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) with the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner had considered the public interest arguments, both for and against disclosure, and concurs with the assessment of the public authority. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.30 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50072311
Case Ref: FS50069924
Date:24/11/05
Public Authority: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)
Summary: The complainant requested the relevant research literature that a peer reviewer might have been referring to in relation to the HFEA's decision to grant research licence RO158. The Commissioner finds that the HFEA did provide the requested information. However the HFEA failed to provide the information within the statutory period of twenty working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 Not Upheld, FOI s.10 Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50069924
Case Ref: FS50074953
Date: 24/11/05
Public Authority: The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Borough Council (LBBD)
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a report relating to the handling of her son's case by social services department of LBBD. The complainant made their request on 6/4/05 and no response was received. Therefore the Council failed to comply with section 10. Since a response has now been sent, the Commissioner does not require any further action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50074953
Case Ref: FS50069737
Date: 23/11/05
Public Authority: Gwent Healthcare NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the Non-Urgent Patient Transport Policy from the Trust. The Trust did not provide the policy as it does not exist at present but they failed to respond to the complainant's request and inform them of this within the statutory 20 working day period. The Trust has confirmed that they will supply the complainant with a copy of the policy once it has been formulated.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50069737
Case Ref: FS50070223
Date: 22/11/05
Public Authority: Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
Summary:
The complainant requested the amounts spent on further education over the last 20 years. DfES failed to respond to the complainant's request within 20 working days and when they did respond, did not initially provide all of the requested information. Following the intervention of the Information Commissioner, DfES did provide all of the information requested.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50070223Case Ref: FS50088114
Date: 22/11/05
Public Authority: The Insolvency Service
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Insolvency Service about a bankruptcy proceeding that took place in 1991. The response stated that information relating to this bankruptcy proceeding was no longer retained. The Insolvency Service provided documentation to the Commissioner demonstrating that information of the type requested is retained for seven years. No information was available to the Commissioner that suggested that the documents sought were held at the time that the request was made and the complaint was, therefore not upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50088114
Case Ref: FS50076641
Date: 17/11/05
Public Authority: Bretforton Parish Council
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Council on 17/01/05 requesting information relating to specific meetings, procedures and statements. The Council responded telling the complainant that the request had been 'forwarded to their legal advisors'. The complainant sent further letters reiterating the original request but did not receive a response from the Council in accordance with the Act. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the Council supplied the information requested on 2/9/05.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50076641
Case Ref: FS50072204
Date: 17/11/05
Public Authority: Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)
Summary: The complainant wrote to the DVLA on 4/1/05 to request information relating to the status of particular vehicles on the DVLA database. DVLA did not accept that the request required a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the "Act") and instead used existing internal criteria for deciding whether the request should be honoured. Consequently, the complainant did not receive a response from DVLA as directed by the Act. Following the Commissioner's intervention the complainant received a valid refusal notice on 4/10/05.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50072204
Case Ref: FS50076778
Date: 15/11/05
Public Authority: Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland)
Summary: The complainant requested information pertaining to costs incurred by the Planning Service in relation to an appeal and discontinuance notice. The Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) provided some information, and following an internal review they provided further details. Following investigation, the Commissioner is satisfied that the Department of the Environment (NI) do not hold any further information. However as the Department of the Environment (NI) failed to provide all the information held at the time of the request within 20 working days they have breached section 10.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld; FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50076778
Case Ref: FS50087463
Date: 09/11/05
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to investigations carried out concerning the conduct of prison staff. Home Office failed to provide the information requested within 20 working days the Commissioner upholds this complaint. However the information was subsequently provided and so no further steps were identified.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50087463
Case Ref: FS50087462
Date: 09/11/05
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested information on investigations carried out concerning the conduct of prison staff. There were two aspects to the complaint; that the request was not responded to within 20 working days and that the Home Office failed in their duty to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner found that the Home Office did not respond to this request within 20 working days and, therefore, upheld this aspect of the complaint. When responding to this request, the Home Office only stated that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit of £600 for central government and so the information requested would not be provided. As the Home Office did not help to refine the request and did not offer any information about their cost estimate the Commissioner believes that the Home Office failed in their duty to provide advice and assistance and so this aspect of the complaint is also upheld. The Commissioner has not required any further action by the Home Office in connection with these complaints because assistance has since been provided.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.16 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50087462
Case Ref: FS50072107
Date: 09/11/05
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to investigations carried out into the conduct of prison staff. The complaints to the Information Commissioner were that the request was not responded to within 20 working days (section 10), that the Home Office stated incorrectly that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the central government cost limit of £600 (section 12). However, since the Home Office did not help to refine the request and did not offer any information about their cost estimate the Commissioner believes that the Home Office failed to offer advice and assistance (section 16). Therefore the Commissioner made a decision on three issues; upholding complaints regarding the time for compliance and provision of advice and assistance and not upholding the complaint regarding the application of the Act when calculating the cost estimate.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.12 - Complaint Not Upheld; FOI s.16 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50072107
Case Ref: FS50070856
Date: 09/11/05
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence (MoD)
Summary: The complainant requested the signature of a former serviceman from the MoD, who responded by stating that the signature was not held. The complainant disputed this statement and the Commissioner asked the MoD for further information to satisfy himself that the information was not held. The MoD provided evidence of appropriate records management procedures and policies and so the Commissioner did not uphold the complaint.
Section of the Act & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50070856
Case Ref: FS50074781
Date: 08/11/05
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence (MoD)
Summary: The complainant requested the logbooks of an ex-serviceman. There were two aspects to the complaint. Firstly, the complainant felt that the initial response by the MoD was ambiguous and did not comply with the duty to confirm or deny. The MoD confirmed both to the complainant and the Commissioner that the intention of their statement was to communicate a denial that the information was held. With regard to this aspect of the complaint, the Commissioner was satisfied that the MoD did comply with the Act. The second aspect to the complaint related to the veracity of the MoD's denial that the information was held. The MoD explained why the information was not held and the Commissioner was satisfied with the steps taken by the MoD to ascertain whether the information was held. The Decision Notice found that the MoD was not in breach of Section 1.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50074781
Case Ref: FS50069257
Date: 07/11/05
Public Authority: York Hospitals NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to a particular workplace grievance procedure. The request was refused under section 40 (personal information). The Commissioner decided that if the third party personal data (including that about individuals who had consented to information being disclosed to the complainant) was disclosed to the general public there would be a breach of the first data protection principle. Therefore the exemption provided by section 40(2) was applicable.
Section of Act & Finding: FOI s.40 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50069257
Case Ref: FER0067951
Date: 02/11/05
Public Authority: London Borough of Bromley
Summary: The Complainant requested information regarding representations and objections to a Definite Map Modification Order. The Council disclosed a large number of documents but the Complainant alleged the Council was still withholding some documents. The Commissioner is satisfied with the Council's assurances that they do not hold any further information and that therefore they have satisfied r.5(1) of the EIR. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR r.5(1) - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FER0067951
Case Ref: FS50073711
Date: 02/11/05
Public Authority: The Home Office
Summary:
On 03/01/05 the complainant requested information concerning immigration policy. The Home Office did not respond until 19/09/05, when it declined to provide the information as doing so would exceed the prescribed cost limit. The Home Office asked the complainant to refine his request in order to attempt to bring it within the cost limit. He did so, however he was then informed that the information sought was exempt and subject to public interest arguments. The Home Office has breached the time for compliance under the Act and has advised the ICO that it expects to provide a substantive response to the complainant by 14/12/05.
Section of the Act & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50073711Case Ref: FS50068971
Date: 01/11/05
Public Authority: London Borough of Barnet
Summary: On 18/1/05 the complainant requested information relating to the Council's housing allocation scheme. On 15/2/05 the Council replied stating that a fee would be payable for the requested information. On 24/2/05 the complainant wrote to the Council questioning the proposed fee and repeating their information request. The Council failed to reply to the letter but, following intervention by the Information Commissioner's Office, they provided some of the information on 22/7/05 and undertook to supply the remaining information without charge. However, the Council had not supplied any further information at the date of issuing the Decision Notice. The Commissioner's decision is that the request was not responded to in accordance with section 1(1) of the Act and the Decision Notice requires the Council to provide the complainants with the remaining information.
Section of the Act & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50068971
October
Case Ref: FS50066313
Date: 24/10/05
Public Authority: Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
Summary: The Complainant requested details of legal advice sought by the DTI's legal department from Treasury Counsel in relation to complaints made about a franchise company. The complainant asked for the brief and evidence provided to Counsel, and the opinion of Counsel including details of all meetings, telephone calls, emails and letters. The advice centred on what, if any, action should be taken by the DTI as a result of the complaints. The DTI refused to disclose the information requested citing the exemptions provided by section 21 (information reasonably accessible by other means) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The DTI also refused to confirm or deny that it held information about an investigation into the company's activities. In doing so, it relied on the section 43(2) and (3) exemption (no duty to confirm or deny if to do so would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person). The Commissioner agreed that section 21 was correctly applied to certain documents accompanying the submission to Counsel which were available by other means. The Commissioner decided that the submission and further material provided to Counsel, and Counsel's advice, were covered by legal professional privilege, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner further decided that the section 43 exemption had been appropriately applied and that the public interest in this instance was best served by maintaining the exemption. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Findings: FOI s.21 - Complaint Not Upheld; FOI s.42 - Complaint Not Upheld; FOI s.43 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50066313Case Ref: FS50088259
Date: 20/10/05
Public Authority: The Home Office (National Offender Management Service)
Summary: On 14/02/05 the complainant requested statistical information on the number and types of complaints at HMP Long Lartin. This information was provided on 08/06/05, exceeding the 20 day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50088259
Case Ref: FS50088258
Date: 20/10/05
Public Authority: The Home Office (National Offender Management Service)
Summary: On 20/01/05 the complainant requested minutes, notes or similar of staff briefings at HMP Long Lartin. This information was provided on 08/06/05, exceeding the 20 day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50088258
Case Ref: FS50088256
Date: 20/10/05
Public Authority: The Home Office (National Offender Management Service)
Summary: On 24/01/05 the complainant requested a copy of the investigation report for a lockdown that took place at HMP Long Lartin. This was not provided until 12/05/05, exceeding the 20 day limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50088256
Case Ref: FS50073121
Date: 20/10/05
Public Authority: The Home Office (National Offender Management Service)
Summary: On 06/01/05 the complainant requested HMP Long Lartin staff notices. The public authority responded on 17/03/05 by refusing this request because the cost of extracting information would exceed the fees limit detailed by the Act. The complainant later refocused the request and following the intervention by this office the information was provided on 15/08/05. However, both the original and the refocused request were not dealt with within the 20 day time limit, and the refusal notice did not provide details of the public authority's complaints procedure or the right to complain to the Information Commissioner. As the information was later provided no steps were identified in the Decision Notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld, s.17 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50073121
Case Ref: FS50069730
Date: 19/10/05
Public Authority: Cardiff County Council (CCC)
Summary: On 05/01/05 the complainant requested documents relating to the consideration of a particular employee's position within CCC, that employee's employment tribunal and the outcomes of that tribunal. In their response, CCC stated that it was necessary to consider the public interest in relation to this request and indicated that they expected to be able to provide the outcome of their consideration of the public interest by 11/02/05. No reference was made to the particular exemption(s) the public interest test was being applied to CCC had neither advised the complainant of a decision nor released the information by the 11/02/05 and still had not done so at the date of issuing the Decision Notice. The Commissioner requires CCC to provide the complainant with either the information requested or a notice detailing why it is in the public interest to withhold or not confirm whether they hold it.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld, s.17 - Complaint Upheld, s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50069730
Case Ref: FS50071452
Date: 18/10/05
Public Authority: Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA)
Summary: The complainant asked a question regarding the appointment of a particular Judge, who had presided over an action brought by him. It is alleged that the DCA failed to provide all of the information requested, by not providing documents evidencing the Judge's appointment. The Act provides a right of access to recorded information, not specific documents. Since the request made no reference to specific documents and the DCA answered the complainant's question, the complainant was not upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50071452
Case Ref: FS50065361
Date: 18/10/05
Public Authority: Civil Aviation Authority
Summary: The complainant holds a private pilot's licence. The CAA was informed by a third party (the informant) that the complainant was ill and therefore expressed concern about his fitness to fly. The complainant requested copies of all the relevant correspondence held by the CAA and specifically asked for the name and address of the informant. The CAA refused to disclose the information citing the exemption relating to personal information provided by section 40. The Commissioner decided that personal data relating to the informant was covered by the section 40(1) exemption and could not be disclosed without breaching the First Data Protection Principle.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.40 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50065361
Case Ref: FS50068232
Date: 10/10/05
Public Authority: Blythe Bridge High School
Summary: The complainant requested copies of all correspondence and other documentation held by the school relating to himself and his daughter, a pupil at the school. The school provided the information but failed to do so within 20 working days. The Decision Notice did not therefore identify any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50068232
Case Ref: FS50069251
Date: 10/10/05
Public Authority: The Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested information on payments, together with copies of invoices, relating to a large bill settled by Chelmsford Prison between September 2003 and March 2004. It was alleged that the Home Office had not provided all the information. The Home Office replied stating that it held no further information than that already provided in response to a previous, similar request made by the complainant. Following the ICO's investigation, the Home Office provided copies of the invoices and the Commissioner is satisfied with the assurance that there is no further information available. However, a breach of the Act has occurred because the response was received outside the 20 working day limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50069251
Case Ref: FS50069224
Date: 10/10/05
Public Authority: The London Borough of Camden
Summary: The complainant requested a record of activity relating to a parking ticket and an explanation of what LBC inferred from it. LBC has assured the Commissioner that the Parking Attendant pocket book notes constitute the record of activity, a point initially disputed by the complainant, and a letter sent to the complainant on 20 January 2005 covered the second part of his request. The Parking Attendant's notes were provided to the complainant on 23 March 2005, outside the 20 working days allowed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50069224
Case Ref: FS50074785
Date: 05/10/05
Public Authority: Melton Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information about the use of council tax funds in the area of household waste and the use of plastic cups within the council premises. It was alleged that information was withheld and that the requests were not responded to within 20 working days. Although the Commissioner is satisfied that the response was outside the statutory time limit but that all relevant information held by council was provided, the response was outside the statutory limit. The Decision Notice therefore does not identify any steps. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and had upheld this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld, FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50074785
Case Ref: FS50074993
Date: 05/10/05
Public Authority: The Governing Body of Ashcombe Primary School
Summary: The complainant requested copies of all correspondence regarding the felling of trees at the School. The School did not confirm or deny whether the information specified in the request was held within the 20 working day time limit. The Decision Notice identified the breach but did not require any steps to be taken as a response was subsequently provided.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50074993
Case Ref: FS50071195
Date: 04/10/05
Public Authority: Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to changes in the services available at a local day hospital and alleged the response to this was late and incomplete. The trust responded outside the 20 working days and stated that some information was withheld on the grounds that it had been provided in response to a previous request. However, they did not issue the applicant with a notice stating that information had been withheld and the reasons for this. The trust has now issued a Refusal Notice and the Commissioner is satisfied with their assurances that all relevant information not previously provided has been released. Therefore, the Commissioner has not required the public authority to take any further action. The complainant has lodged an appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld, FOI S.10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50071195
Case Ref: FS50071196
Date: 04/10/05
Public Authority: Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to policies on the transport of patients to the Accident and Emergency Department of Newark Hospital. It was alleged that some information was withheld and that the Trust failed to provide the requested information within the time limit. The latter part of the complaint is upheld, but the Commissioner is satisfied that the Trust provided all of the relevant information held at the time the request was made.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld, FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50071196
September
Case Ref: FS50069723
Date: 26/09/05
Public Authority: Financial Services Authority (FSA)
Summary: The complainant asked the FSA for information relating to the calculations they completed to work out weighted average mortgage interest rates. These rates are supplied by the FSA to the Office for National Statistics for publication and are used to calculate the Mortgage Interest Rate of Relief. The FSA provided the complainant with an explanation of the method used to calculate the weighted average. They also provided a table of the published individual interest rates for each of the 23 largest building societies which are used in the calculations. However, they refused to provide the complainant with details of the mortgage balances or the calculations carried out by the FSA citing the exemption in section 44 (1) (a) of the Act. They asserted that the disclosure is prohibited by virtue of section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority has handled the request correctly and that the FSA has appropriately applied the exemption in this instance. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.44 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50069723 Case Ref: FS50073292
Date: 26/09/05
Public Authority: The Cabinet Office
Summary: On the 23 February 2005 the applicant requested copies of all correspondence between the Prime Minister and Lord Birt from the 1 July 2004 to present. The Cabinet Office failed to respond within 20 working days. A Refusal Notice was issued on 6 May 2005 and the complainant has since requested an internal review. This Decision Notice identifies the breach of the statutory time limit but does not contain any remedial steps.
Section of Act & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50073292
Case Ref: FS50073992
Date: 23/09/05
Public Authority: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
Summary: Complainant requested information relating to the failure of artificial hip prostheses. The MHRA failed to respond within 20 working days. The information has been subsequently provided, and so the Decision Notice does not identify any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50073992
Case Ref: FS50068767
Date: 23/09/05
Public Authority: University of Cambridge
Summary: The complainant requested copies of several documents from the University. Most were provided but one document was not supplied and the applicant received a Refusal Notice applying a section 42 (legal professional privilege) exemption under the Act. This notice did not contain details of any complaints procedure and therefore the University breached section 17(7) of the Act, although they remedied this by issuing a subsequent letter. The complainant alleged that the exemption applied to the refused information was not valid. The Commissioner decided that the document was covered by legal professional privilege and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Section of Act & Finding: FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI s. 42 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50068767
Case Ref: FS50080409
Date: 14/09/05
Public Authority: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
Summary: The complainant requested details of any legal advice, other than provided by Elizabeth Wilmhurst (the former legal advisor to the FCO), to the British Government which cast doubt on the legality of military action against Iraq. The FCO did not confirm or deny whether the information specified in the request was held within the 20 working day time limit. The Decision Notice identified the breach but did not require any steps to be taken as a response was subsequently sent to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s. 10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50080409
Case Ref: FS50071320
Date: 13/09/05
Public Authority: Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning operational details of speed cameras and alleged that the CPS failed to respond to this request. After investigation, the Commissioner's decision is that the request was not responded to in accordance with section 1(1) of the Act. The Decision Notice identified steps, requiring the CPS to provide a proper response to the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s. 1 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50071320
Case Ref: FS50067869
Date: 13/09/05
Public Authority: The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the prosecution of himself and legal action against his landlord. The Council responded that they did not hold any relevant information. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the request was clarified and some information was provided by the Council. However the Commissioner believes that the initial request was insufficiently clear to enable the Council to identify the information sought and hence does not consider that the Act has been breached.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s. 1 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50067869
Case Ref: FS50067937
Date: 12/09/05
Public Authority: Greater Manchester Police (GMP)
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to police vehicle safety checks from GMP in a letter dated 6 January 2005. GMP responded to 2 of 7 questions but when asked by the complainant for a response to the remaining questions, they refused. The ICO wrote to GMP insisting that they respond to the request. GMP did so on the 10 May 2005 and provided all of the requested information; however a breach of the Act has occurred because the response was received outside the 20 working day limit.
Section of Act & Finding: FOI s. 10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50067937
Case Ref: FS50064062
Date: 05/09/05
Public Authority: Luton Borough Council
Summary: The case concerned the correct interpretation of the complainant's request. The request was for information relating to a parcel of land that had a complicated management history. The complicated history of the site made it difficult for the complainant to identify precisely the information he wanted. The Council believed they had provided the information requested and did not recognise that it was quite reasonable to place an alternative interpretation on the request despite the complainant attempting to clarify the matter at the internal review stage. The Decision Notice required the Council to provide the complainant with a copy of the information contained in various correspondence records.
Section of Act & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50064062
August
Case Ref: FS50063907
Date: 25/08/05
Public Authority: Hertfordshire County Council
Summary: The complainant had requested information relating to the care of his late mother by the Council Social Services Department. The Council issued a Refusal Notice in which it stated that it required an extension to the usual 20 working day period allowed for response in order to consider the public interest in confirming or denying that it held the information requested. As a result of the Commissioner's intervention, the Council belatedly issued a second Refusal Notice in which it stated that the information was exempt by virtue of section 21 of the Act because it had previously been provided to the complainant and was thus reasonably available to the applicant by other means. The Commissioner found that the first Refusal Notice was inadequate. He did not accept that further time was needed to consider the public interest or that there should have been any question about whether the Council was prepared to confirm or deny the holding of the information requested. Moreover the Notice failed to provide a target date for response. However, the Commissioner considered that the second Refusal Notice, albeit issued after considerable delay met the requirements of the Act. He also upheld the Council's reliance on s.21 after being provided with copies of documents that had previously been supplied to the complainant. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI s.21 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50063907Case Ref: FS50062124
Date: 25/08/05
Public Authority: Corby Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested details of the total amount of money paid to the Former Temporary Finance Officer employed by the Council. The Council refused to provide the information claiming that the exemption in section 40 (2) applied. As the disclosure of the information would breach the first data protection principle, the Commissioner is of the view that the disclosure of the information in question would not breach the Data Protection Act. Therefore, section 40 is not engaged.
Section of Act & Finding: FOI s.40 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50062124
Case Ref: FS50071067
Date: 08/08/05
Public Authority: Guildford Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the dates on which recycling boxes were delivered to his neighbours and alleged that the information was provided late and was incomplete. The Commissioner's decision was that the information was not provided within the statutory time period, but the Commissioner was satisfied with the assurance of the Council that all relevant information had been provided.
Section of Act/ERI & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld, FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50071067
Case Ref: FS50068601
Date: 03/08/05
Public Authority: The Chief Officer of Police of Essex Constabulary ("Essex Constabulary")
Summary: The complainant asked Essex Police via the Office of Essex Safety Camera Partnership to provide him with the identity of the 20 fixed camera locations in Essex that catch the most drivers speeding, how many drivers per month or year are caught at each of these locations, and how much money was raised from each location per month or year. Essex Constabulary refused to provide the information citing s.31 (Law Enforcement) and s.38 (Likely to endanger the Health and Safety of any Individual). Whilst the Commissioner recognises the value of improving public awareness and the opportunity disclosure would bring to further the debate on the effectiveness and purpose of speed cameras, he was not persuaded that the public interest in furthering this debate would outweigh the public interest in maintaining both of these exemptions. There is in his opinion a stronger public interest in avoiding both an increase in non compliance with road traffic laws and the likely increased risk to the health and safety of the public. The Commissioner was also persuaded that if the perception of the risk of being caught by speed cameras was reduced this may force Essex Constabulary to consider more widespread installation of speed cameras incurring additional public expenditure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.31 - Complaint Not Upheld, FOI s.38 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50068601
Case Ref: FAC0068022
Date: 03/08/05
Public Authority: Oldham Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested copies of car boot Sunday Attendance Sheets issued by Council officers attending car boot sales within the Borough of Oldham and alleged that the Council did not provide the information requested. The Council provided the sheets for 1998 to 2000 but could not provide sheets for 2001 to 2004 as they stated they did not hold this information. The Council has satisfied the Commissioner that it has not used Council officers to carry out inspections of car boot sales since 2000 and therefore the information requested is not held. In advising the complainant the information was not held within 20 working days the Commissioner was satisfied that the Council has complied with s.1(1) and s.10(1) of the Act. In endeavouring to provide some information concerning the particular site of interest to the complainant the Commissioner was also satisfied the Council has also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld, FOI s.10 - Complaint Not Upheld, FOI s.16 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full transcript of Decision Notice FAC0068022
Case Ref: FS50067279
Date: 02/08/05
Public Authority: The Chief Officer of Police of Hampshire Constabulary ("Hampshire Constabulary")
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority to provide him with information about the number of offences detected at and the revenue generated by two fixed speed cameras on Mountbatten Way in Southampton. Hampshire Constabulary refused to provide the information citing FOI s.31 (Prejudice to Law Enforcement). In correspondence with the Commissioner, Hampshire Constabulary also cited FOI s.38 (Likely to Endanger the Health and Safety of any Individual). While the Commissioner recognised that the release of the requested information would inform the debate about the purpose and efficacy of speed cameras, he was not persuaded that the public interest in informing this debate outweighed the public interest in maintaining both exemptions. This is because he believes that there is a stronger public interest in avoiding both the likely increased risk to health and safety of any individual and the likely increase in non-compliance with road traffic laws. The Commissioner was also persuaded that the release of requested information would require the public authority to take countermeasures to negate the increased risks that have been identified and that these countermeasures would entail an increase in public expenditure. The complainant has lodged an appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.31 - Complaint Not Upheld, FOI s.38 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50067279
Case Ref: FS50068017
Date: 02/08/05
Public Authority: Chief Officer of Police of Hampshire Constabulary ("Hampshire Constabulary")
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority to provide him with information about the number of speeding tickets and monetary revenue per camera site across Portsmouth, Gosport, Havant and Fareham in 2004/05. Hampshire Constabulary refused to provide the information citing FOI s.31 (Prejudice Law Enforcement) and FOI s.38 (Likely to Endanger Health and Safety of any individual). The Commissioner is satisfied that the release of site specific information is likely to prejudice law enforcement and endanger the safety of individuals. He was not persuaded that the public interest in disclosing site specific information outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemptions. He believes that there is a stronger public interest in avoiding both the likely increased risk to the safety of individuals and the likely increase in non-compliance with road traffic laws. The Commissioner was also persuaded that the release of the requested information would require the public authority to take countermeasures to negate the increased risks that have been identified and that such countermeasures would entail an increase in public expenditure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.31 - Complaint Not Upheld, FOI s.38 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50068017
Case Ref: FS50064699
Date: 01/08/05
Public Authority: The Standards Board for England
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the investigation of a complaint about him. The Standards Board refused this request on the grounds the information consisted of personal data, some relating to the complainant and some relating to third parties, and that in either case disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act. Having conducted an internal review, the Board also cited additional exemptions, namely those covering information subject to legal professional privilege and information whose disclosure is prohibited by law. The Commissioner considered that the public authority had handled the request correctly and that it was entitled to rely upon the exemptions cited. The complainant has lodged an appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.40 - Complaint Not Upheld, FOI s.42 - Complaint Not Upheld, FOI s.44 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50064699
Case Ref: FAC0067997
Date: 01/08/05
Public Authority: Islip Parish Council
Summary: The complainant requested details relating to an interest free loan referred to in Council minutes. The Council did not confirm or deny whether the information specified in the request was held within the 20 working day time limit and failed to issue a Refusal Notice. The Decision Notice identified steps, requiring the Council to provide a proper response to the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld.
Full transcript of Decision Notice FAC0067997
Case Ref: FS50075934
Date: 01/08/05
Public Authority: The Learning and Skills Council
Summary: The complainant requested details of guidelines and requirements for the approval of any application by an FE institution for major development in an area. The Learning and Skills Council did not confirm or deny whether the information specified in the request was held within the 20 working day time limit. The Decision Notice identified the breach but did not require any steps to be taken as a response was subsequently sent.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50075934
Case Ref: FS50068387
Date: 01/08/05
Public Authority: Leeds Metropolitan University
Summary: The complainant made a request on 2 February 2005 for a copy of an external assessor's report and a copy of the minutes of a faculty committee meeting. The University responded by issuing a Refusal Notice on 26 May 2005. The Decision Notice therefore identified the breach of the statutory time limit but did not require steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50068387
July
Case Ref: FAC0071187
Date: 26/07/05
Public Authority: Chester City Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to a draft Planning Board decision. The Council did not issue a valid Refusal Notice, and so the Decision Notice required it to do so. The council has lodged an appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR r.14 - Complaint Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FAC0071187Case Ref: FER0074855
Date: 21/07/05
Public Authority: London Borough of Hounslow
Summary: Having inspected information contained within particular planning application files, the complainant requested copies of various documents from these files. He was charged £188 for provision of the information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and complained that this charge was excessive. The Commissioner's decision is that the Council has satisfied itself that its charges do not exceed a reasonable amount in accordance with Part 2, paragraph 8(3) of the Regulations.
Section of the Act/EIR & Finding: EIR r.8 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FER0074855
Case Ref: FER0061168
Date: 20/07/05
Public Authority: King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council
Summary: The complainant alleged that the charges for providing copies of a planning application were excessive. The Commissioner notes recent reductions in these charges and accepts that the Council has satisfied itself that its charges do not exceed a reasonable amount in accordance with Part 2, paragraph 8(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The complainant appealed to the Information Tribunal who upheld the appeal and issued a substitute notice, this is available at www.informationtribunal.gov.uk.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 8(2)(b) – Complaint not upheld, EIR 8(3) – Not Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FER0061168
Case Ref: FS50069386
Date: 20/07/05
Public Authority: Independent Police Complaints Commission
Summary: The complainant requested access to complaints originally handled by the Independent Police Complaints Authority. The IPCC refused the request citing a statutory prohibition originally provided under s.80 of the Police Act 1996. Having investigated the matter, the Commissioner decided that the statutory prohibition was still valid. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.44 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50069386
Case Ref: FS50068236
20/07/05
Public Authority: Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a report dating from 1989, regarding care and treatment provided by the Royal United Hospital Bath. The Trust stated that they did not hold a copy of the report, explaining that files of this type were normally destroyed after 10 years. The Commissioner is satisfied with the Trust's assurances that it does not hold the information and therefore finds there has not been a breach of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50068236
Case Ref: FAC0067277
Date: 20/07/05
Public Authority: Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
Summary: The complainants requested access to both their own social services records and those of a third party. The Council informed them that they did not hold this information. The Commissioner investigated the matter and was satisfied with the assurances by the Council that they do not hold information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FAC0067277
Case Ref: FER0067003
Date: 20/07/05
Public Authority: King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council
Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council would not provide copies of a planning application file free of charge. Recent changes to the charging regime meant that the cost to the complainant for a file containing a decision notice, an A2 plan and 36 A4 sheets would reduce from £234 to £37. The Commissioner notes these changes and accepts that the Council has satisfied itself that its charges do not exceed a reasonable amount in accordance with Part 2, paragraph 8(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 8(2)(b) – Complaint Not Upheld, EIR 8(3) – Complaint not upheld.
<