2006

Please find below all the decision notices released by the ICO in 2006, organised by month:

December

November

October

September

August

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

December

Case Ref: FS50074342
Date: 21/12/2006
Public Authority: North Yorkshire Police
Summary: The complainant asked North Yorkshire Police (NYP) for information about the cost to the force of policing/policing protests at RAF Menwith Hill (‘the base’). NYP refused to provide the information, citing the exemptions contained in sections 24(1), 26(1), 27(1), 31, 36(2), and 38(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, NYP subsequently withdrew its citation of the exemption in section 24 and instead contended that the exemption in section 23(1) was applicable to most of the information sought. The Commissioner has decided that section 23(1) is engaged and, since it is an absolute exemption, it is not subject to the public interest test, and NYP is entitled to withhold the information in question. While the Commissioner welcomed NYP’s agreement to provide the complainant with some information, he criticised NYP for citing section 23 at such a late stage and found that NYP was in breach of section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 23 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50074342

Case Ref: FS50113427
Date: 20/12/2006
Public Authority: City and County of Swansea
Summary: The complainant requested information about the original estimates, tenders and costings for the building of an educational classroom in the Botanical Gardens, Singleton Park, Swansea. The public authority provided some information, but the complainant has alleged that he has not received all of the information requested. The public authority has not been able to demonstrate to the Commissioner that it has responded to all parts of the request, and therefore the Commissioner finds that the public authority has breached its duties under sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the outstanding information or issue a valid refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50113427

Case Ref: FS50063716
Date: 20/12/2006
Public Authority: The Royal Surrey County Hospital
Summary: Initially the complainant made a request to the Royal Surrey County Hospital (RSCH) under the Access to Health Records Act 1990 (AHRA) for information relating to her late husband’s treatment whilst he was a patient in the hospital. She then made a separate request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for four particular pieces of information that she maintained the public authority had withheld when it had responded to her request under the AHRA. The public authority informed the complainant that it would not be providing the four pieces of information she had requested under Section 1 of the Act as the information did not exist. Having investigated the matter and examined the information in question the Commissioner has decided that in relation to three of the four pieces of information the public authority has dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with the requirements of Part I of the Act. The public authority eventually located the fourth piece of information and provided a copy of this to the complainant. The Commissioner has decided that this information was exempt under section 21 of the Act because it was accessible to the complainant under the AHRA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Partially Upheld , FOI 21 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50063716

Case Ref: FS50089403
Date: 20/12/2006
Public Authority: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Summary: The complainant asked Defra for a copy of the list showing details of the producers to whom the farm ID numbers on eggs relate. Defra initially refused to provide the information, saying that it was personal information covered by the Data Protection Act. Defra subsequently decided that the request should have been dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act, but still declined to release the information, citing sections 38 and 43(2) of that Act. The Commissioner decided that section 38 was engaged in relation to the information sought and that the public interest lay in favour of maintaining that exemption. He also decided that section 40 was engaged in respect of certain personal information. Since those exemptions covered all of the information in question, he saw no need to consider whether section 43(2) was also engaged. The Commissioner welcomed Defra’s agreement to release to the complainant a list relating farm ID numbers to particular counties. However, he concluded that Defra had breached section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 38 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld , EIR 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50089403

Case Ref: FS50131059
Date: 15/12/2006
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant requested information related to the Scott Inquiry. The public authority responded that it does not hold this information. Having considered the representations of the both the complainant and the public authority, the Commissioner accepts that no information falling within the scope of the information request is held by the public authority. Therefore the Commissioner considers that the public authority dealt with the complainant’s request for information in accordance with section 1(1) of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal. 
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50131059

Case Ref: FS50131073
Date: 15/12/2006
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning submissions made to the Scott Inquiry. The public authority stated that it was not possible to confirm or deny whether information relevant to the request was held without exceeding the relevant cost limit of £600 and therefore that section 12 provides that it is not obliged to do so. The public authority carried out a search limited to the areas of its records which it felt were most likely to contain information relevant to the request. However, the public authority was not able to locate any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner accepts that in this case to confirm or deny whether the public authority holds information of the description outlined in the request would in itself exceed the appropriate limit. Therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the Act. No further steps on the part of the public authority are required.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50131073

Case Ref: FS50064698
Date: 15/12/2006
Public Authority: General Medical Council
Summary: The complainant requested details of the complaints histories of six named doctors from the General Medical Council (the “GMC”). The GMC refused this request under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the basis that it constituted the personal data of the doctors in question and that to release the information would breach the data protection principles. It further argued that it would also breach their human rights and therefore a statutory prohibition applied under section 44 of the Act. During the course of the investigation the GMC also submitted that it owed a duty of confidence to the doctors involved and that, as a result, an exemption under section 41 of the Act applied. It also submitted that a section 31 exemption may be applicable as disclosure of the requested information could harm the GMC’s ability to effectively regulate doctors. Having considered both parties submissions and conducted a thorough investigation, the Commissioner found that the exemption under section 40 of the Act was applicable and that the GMC had therefore been right to withhold the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50064698

Case Ref: FS50115610
Date: 12/12/2006
Public Authority: Monitor
Summary: The complainant requested the monitoring returns of NHS Foundation Trusts provided to the public authority between 2004 and 2005 as part of its functions as the regulator of NHS foundation trusts. The authority refused to disclose the information on the grounds that the exemptions in section 33(1) (b) (audit functions), section 43 (commercial interests), section 22 (information intended for future publication) and section 21 (information available by other means) were applicable to the information. The Commissioner's decision is that information provided to the authority as part of its 2004 returns does not fall within the exemptions applied and that the information should therefore be disclosed to the complainant. As regards the returns from 2005, the Commissioner's decision is that Monitor was able to apply the exemptions in sections 33 and 43 of the Act at the time that the request was received. However, the annual reports and accounts of both the public authority and the trusts have been published since the complaint was made to the Commissioner. He has therefore decided that this information should also now be disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 21 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 22 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 33 - Complaint Partially Upheld , FOI 43 - Complaint Partially Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50115610

Case Ref: FS50118463
Date: 12/12/2006
Public Authority: Greater Manchester Police
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for a large file containing information relating to him and to court proceedings that took place in the 1970s and 1980s. Having conducted a search of its records the public authority advised the complainant that it did not hold this information. The public authority explained that if the information had been held it was likely that it would have been destroyed a number of years ago due to the time that had elapsed since the events to which the request related took place. Having considered the information available the Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested by the complainant is not held by the public authority.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50118463

Case Ref: FS50101391
Date: 11/12/2006
Public Authority: National Archives
Summary: The complainant requested information from the National Archives relating to the 1911 census schedule. The National Archives withheld the requested information, relying on the exemption under section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’). In this case, the Commissioner’s decision is that the National Archives wrongly claimed section 41 in relation to the requested information and he therefore upholds the complaint. The Commissioner requires the National Archives to disclose the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner stresses that that this Decision must be confined to the circumstances relating to the information requested in this case. This is not - and cannot be - a decision that the entirety of the 1911 census must now be disclosed. Nor does it create any precedent in the sense that all other requests for specific information within the 1911 or other census schedules must succeed. This Decision concludes with more general guidance about situations where section 41 of the Act may apply in this context. Each request for 1911 census information will need to be treated separately on its merits.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50101391

Case Ref: FS50099068
Date: 11/12/2006
Public Authority: Cheshire Constabulary
Summary: The complainant requested information related to the number of prosecutions that came about as a result of a particular safety camera. The Police withheld this information under sections 31 and 38. After consideration of whether these exemptions were applied correctly, including consideration of the public interest, the Commissioner has upheld the decision of the public authority to withhold this information. However, the Commissioner does find that section 17 was breached when the public authority failed to issue an adequate refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 38 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50099068

Case Ref: FS50102474
Date: 11/12/2006
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant asked the BBC how much its staging of the Children in Need charity appeal programme cost in 2005; how much of the money raised was spent on televising the appeal and how much individual presenters and other personalities including Terry Wogan, Eamon Holmes and Natasha Kaplinsky were paid. The complainant also requested a list of all music acts which were paid for their services on the night. The BBC refused the request on the grounds that it fell outside the scope of the Act. The Commissioner decided that the Act did apply. He also decided that the exemptions under sections 40 and 43 of the Act which were submitted by the BBC did not exempt the information from disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50102474

Case Ref: FS50105724
Date: 11/12/2006
Public Authority: London Borough of Sutton
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information about parking fines issued over a six month period. The public authority refused to answer the complainant’s request on the grounds that to provide the information would exceed the cost limit. The Commissioner investigated this claim and accepts that the public authority could not have answered the request within the cost limit. However, the Commissioner established that the public authority failed to provide the complainant with any advice and assistance. The also Commissioner established that the complainant’s request had two separate elements and that it would have been possible for the Council to answer the first part of the request within the cost limit. The Commissioner considers that if the Council had provided advice and assistance to the complainant this should have led the Council to fulfil part one of the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council fulfilled part one of the request. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50105724

Case Ref: FS50123625
Date: 05/12/2006
Public Authority: Valuation Office Agency
Summary: The complainant requested that the public authority, under the Freedom of Information Act, provide information regarding the council tax banding of his property. Although it provided certain information the Commissioner finds that it did not do so in accordance with its obligations under the Act and in particular is in breach of sections 1 and 10.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50123625

Case Ref: FS50086076
Date: 05/12/2006
Public Authority: Swansea NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority relating to complaints of mistreatment/neglect/abuse received by the authority in respect of its premises at Morriston and Gorseinon. The public authority responded by supplying the complainant with the authority’s ‘Complaints Performance Management Report’ for the period of July 2004 to September 2004. The complainant indicated to the public authority that the report was insufficient and further qualified his request should cover (a) copies of actual complaints files retained by the authority and (b) all copy files held by the authority for a ten (10) year period preceding the request. The public authority then refused the request by virtue of section 12 stating that the cost of complying would exceed the ‘appropriate limit.’ The Commissioner sought evidence to show that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit, and a member of his staff visited the public authority to view its record management systems. The Commissioner decided, in this case, the authority applied the Act appropriately by refusing the request by virtue of section 12.The complainant has alleged that the public authority did not provide an appropriate level of advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of the Act. The Commissioner has therefore considered whether the provision of advice and assistance was adequate for the purposes of the Act. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority satisfied the duty to provide such advice and assistance under section 16 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 16 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50086076

Case Ref: FS50101185
Date: 04/12/2006
Public Authority: Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
Summary: The complainant submitted three similar requests to the public authority for information about its powers to stop drivers and inspect their vehicles. The public authority responded to these requests, but informed the complainant that it had calculated that the aggregated cost of replying to these requests had exceeded the appropriate cost limit. Consequently, the public authority informed the complainant that it would not respond to any similar requests the complainant decided to submit until 60 working days after the date of the first request. The Commissioner has established that the public authority incorrectly calculated the costs of responding to these requests and therefore the basis for refusing to answer any future requests was flawed. However, the Commissioner has decided that this error did not lead to a breach of the Act because the complainant did not actually submit a further request within the 60 working day period, and in order for a breach to occur an actual request, rather than a theoretical request, has to be incorrectly refused. The complainant also informed the Commissioner that the public authority had failed to fulfil two separate requests for information he had submitted. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority does not hold the information needed to fulfil these two separate requests, although in responding to one of these requests the Commissioner considers that the public authority breached section 1(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Partially Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50101185

Case Ref: FER0088372
Date: 04/12/2006
Public Authority: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Summary: The complainant requested the advice given to a minister who subsequently confirmed a bye-law in relation to salmon fishing on the River Teign. The request was correctly handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Access to the information in question was refused on the grounds that the advice constituted internal communications and that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The Commissioner has reviewed the information in question and considered the arguments proposed, but does not agree that the balance lies in favour of withholding the information. DEFRA are required to release the information within 35 working days
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(4)(e) - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FER0088372 

November

Case Ref: FS50081543
Date: 29/11/2006
Public Authority: Department for Transport
Summary: The complainant requested copies of the invitation to tender that had been issued to four bidders for a major rail franchise. The public authority initially withheld the information under section 43 on the basis that its disclosure would prejudice its commercial interests and under section 22, as it intended to publish the information at a later date. At internal review the public authority also applied section 36 – information likely to prejudice the conduct of public affairs. The public authority did release this information to the complainant once the franchise had been awarded and the public authority perceived it was no longer commercially sensitive. The Commissioner found that section 43 did not apply and that although section 36 was engaged, the exemption could not be maintained in the public interest. In relation to section 22 the Commissioner found that there was no settled intention to publish the information at the time the request was received and so the exemption could not be relied on. In light of this the Commissioner found the public authority had failed to provide the information within the 20 working days allowed by the Act. This constitutes a breach of section 10.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 36 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 22 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld 
View PDF of decision notice FS50081543

Case Ref: FS50104994
Date: 29/11/2006
Public Authority: HM Treasury
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to Her Majesty’s Treasury for all relevant papers relating to the decision to reduce income tax by one pence in the pound announced in the 1999 Budget. HMT advised that the information was refused by virtue of section 35(1)(a) of the Act. HMT also concluded that the public interest was not served by releasing the requested information. Having investigated this case the Commissioner is not satisfied that HMT dealt with the request in accordance with the Act. The Commissioner finds that HMT failed to respond to the request within the timescales provided by the Act and failed to provide appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner also found that the refusal notice given to the complainant was less helpful than he would hope is generally the case, although he notes that in this instance the complainant does not appear to have been disadvantaged as a result. The Commissioner is particularly critical of the fact that the public authority gave the impression to the applicant that significantly more information was held than was the case. The Commissioner finds, moreover, that although HMT was correct to regard the requested information as falling within the terms of the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the Act, he does not consider that the public interest favoured the maintenance of the exemption. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 - Complaint Upheld 

View PDF of decision notice FS50104994

Case Ref: FS50079628
Date: 29/11/2006
Public Authority: Transport for London
Summary: The applicant submitted a request to the public authority on 3 April 2005 for copies of the questionnaires it had received as part of the Thames Gateway Bridge public consultation. The public authority dealt with the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and responded that it would be unable to supply all the information requested as to do so would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ specified in section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Having investigated this case the Commissioner is of the view that the requested questionnaires in fact contain ‘environmental information’. Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the view that the public authority should reconsider the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and ensure that any charge imposed for the provision of the information is both legitimately chargeable under the Regulations and is ‘reasonable’.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5(1) - Complaint Upheld 
View PDF of decision notice FS50079628

Case Ref: FS50108985
Date: 29/11/2006
Public Authority: Department of Finance and Personnel Northern Ireland
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Department of Finance and Personnel Northern Ireland (the “Department”) relating to the work sample test for a promotion competition. The Department withheld the information, relying on the exemptions under sections 36(2)(c) and 29(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”). The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is exempt under section 36(2)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner does not therefore require the Department to take any further steps in relation to the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 29 - Complaint Not upheld 
View PDF of decision notice FS50108985

Case Ref: FS50070878
Date: 27/11/2006
Public Authority: Department of Health
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a report into the National Health Service University, known as the Wells Report, which was withheld under section 33 (audit functions). The department also cited sections 35 (formulation of government policy), 40 (personal information), and 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner has decided that these exemptions have been incorrectly applied, and ordered that the report be released within 35 days. The department also failed to respond to the request within the twenty working day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 33 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 35 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld 
View PDF of decision notice FS50070878

Case Ref: FS50079488
Date: 27/11/2006
Public Authority: Export Credits Guarantee Department
Summary: The request was for copies of minutes of meetings, agendas and all correspondence prepared for or connected with meetings since January 2004 between the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), the CBI and the Airbus consortium relating to ECGD’s revised bribery and corruption procedures. A large bundle of the requested information was made publicly available on the ECGD’s website on the same day as it responded to the complainant’s request. The ECGD refused to provide the remainder of the information because it argued that some of the withheld information related to the formulation and development of government policy (section 35) and that disclosure of some of the information would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36). It also cited section 42 (legal professional privilege) and section 23 (security bodies) as grounds for withholding some of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public interest lies in the release of some of the withheld information to which section 35 was applied. However he decided the ECGD had correctly applied section 36 to some of the withheld information and that the public interest lies in withholding the information. The Commissioner also accepts that section 23 of the Act has been correctly applied to some of the information. However he has decided that section 43 has not been correctly applied to some of the information. The Commissioner also did not accept the ECGD’s argument that the production of a schedule of documents constituted the creation of new information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 - Complaint Partially Upheld , FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 23 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld 
View PDF of decision notice FS50079488

Case Ref: FS50081570
Date: 27/11/2006
Public Authority: Broadland District Council
Summary: The complainant requested information about a complaint concerning a potential breach of planning regulations and subsequent documentation
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 31 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld 
View PDF of decision notice FS50081570

Case Ref: FS50088131
Date: 27/11/2006
Public Authority: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to the MHRA for information relating to the safety of Engerix B (the Hepatitis B Vaccination). The public authority advised that it would be unable to supply all the information requested as to do so would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ under section 12(1) of the Act. Having investigated this case the Commissioner is satisfied that the application of section 12(1) by the public authority was correct. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld 
View PDF of decision notice FS50088131

Case Ref: FS50092601
Date: 27/11/2006
Public Authority: Peterborough City Council
Summary: The complainant requested the public authority to provide certain street name and area details for children who lived furthest away from a particular college and who had been admitted to that college in accordance with the college’s admission criteria. The public authority whilst providing the details of the relevant areas refused to provide details of the street names relying upon an exemption under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (“section 40(2)”) indicating that the information constituted personal information in respect of which there was an absolute exemption against disclosure. The Commissioner considered the papers in the case and corresponded with both parties as a result of which he finds that the public authority incorrectly applied the section 40(2) exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld 
View PDF of decision notice FS50092601

Case Ref: FS50129136
Date: 27/11/2006
Public Authority: Information Commissioner's Office 
Summary: The complainant, Reynolds Hardiman, requested the information from the Commissioner which related to a case heard by the Information Tribunal following an appeal by another individual against a decision made by the Commissioner. The request was refused under section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act on the basis that the documentation consisted of court records. This Decision Notice does not uphold the complaint made and agrees that the exemption has been applied correctly. However, the refusal notice issued in response to the request does not fully comply with the requirements of section 17.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 32 - Complaint Not upheld

Note: In this case the complainant has specifically requested his name and address to be published; our usual practice is to redact this information.

View PDF of decision notice FS50129136

Case Ref: FS50126178
Date: 23/11/2006
Public Authority: Newry and Mourne Health and Social Services
Summary: The complainant originally made a request to the Craigavon & Banbridge Trust on 21st January 2005 for copy records in relation to the complainant’s overseas adoption application. That public authority provided the complainant with that information held by it and transferred part of the request relating to the information held by the Southern Area Adoption Panel to the Chairman of the said panel at Newry & Mourne Health & Social Services Trust. The Trust did not supply the information requested by the complainant in its entirety until 4th November 2006. The Commissioner finds that the Trust did not deal with the request in accordance with the requirements of Part I of the Act because it considerably exceeded the time for compliance, as set out in Section 10 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld 
View PDF of decision notice FS50126178

Case Ref: FS50122830
Date: 23/11/2006
Public Authority: British Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority related to two schemes for sponsoring overseas doctors for medical training in the United Kingdom. The complainant was not satisfied with the information he received. After investigating the complaint the Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority has not withheld any information from the complainant and consequently does not require the public authority to take any further action. However, the Commissioner recognises that the public authority breached section 10 of the Act by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld 
View PDF of decision notice FS50122830

Case Ref: FS50071319
Date: 22/11/2006
Public Authority: Warwick District Council
Summary: : The complainant asked the public authority (‘the Council’) for information which it held about the purchase of land owned by the Council and the complainant. The council provided to the complainant some of the requested information but withheld other information, citing the exemptions contained in sections 41 and 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner has decided that sections 41 and 42 are engaged in this case and that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner finds that the Council failed to comply with section 17 of the Act as it did not inform the complainant of his right to seek a review of the Council’s decision or to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. However, in other respects, the Commissioner finds that the Council dealt with the request in accordance with Part 1 of the Act and does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50071319

Case Ref: FS50088779
Date: 22/11/2006
Public Authority: The Governing Body of Garforth Community College
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to bullying complaints at the College and also information about 3 teachers at the College. The College stated that it did not hold information relating to bullying complaints and refused to provide information requested about 3 teachers on the grounds that disclosure would contravene the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA98). The Commissioner has decided that the College did, in fact, hold bullying complaints information. In failing to explain this to the complainant, the College contravened the requirements of Section 1(1) of the FOI Act. However, the Commissioner has found that location, retrieval and extraction of this information in order to provide it under the FOI Act would exceed the appropriate limit of £450. This limit would be exceeded where it would take the College more than 18 hours work to locate, retrieve and extract the requested information at the specified calculation rate of £25/hour. The Commissioner has also decided that the College should have cited the specific exemption it sought to rely on (Section 40(3)(a)(ii) – Disclosure would contravene DPA98 Section 10) when refusing to provide information about 3 teachers. In failing to specify the exemption it sought to rely on, the College contravened the requirements of Section 17(1)(b) of the FOI Act. In addition, the specific exemption it sought to rely on is qualified by a public interest test. The Commissioner has also decided that the College should have explained why it considered that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the requested information. In failing to explain its position with regard to the balance of public interest the College contravened the requirements of Section 17(3) of the FOI Act. In any event, in the Commissioner’s view, the information relating to the 3 teachers is exempt from disclosure under a different exemption (Section 40(3)(a)(i) – Disclosure would contravene a DPA98 data protection principle). This exemption is not qualified by a public interest test.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50088779

Case Ref: FS50102786
Date: 21/11/2006
Public Authority: Doncaster MBC
Summary: Between 25 September and 30 November 2005 the complainant made four requests for information to Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council relating to aircraft noise resulting from aircraft movements at Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield (“RHADS”) recorded by the fixed Noise Monitoring Terminal (“NMT”) at Bawtry. DMBC refused the complainant’s requests, stating that it did not hold the requested information, because it could “only be accessed by a phone line to a third party’s computer”. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that at the time the requests were made, DMBC “held” the requested information under regulation 3(2)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and that DMBC failed to comply with regulation 5(1) and (2), regulation 9 and regulation 14. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose to the complainant the relevant sections of a detailed noise report relating to November 2005.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 - Complaint Upheld , EIR 9 - Complaint Upheld , EIR 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50102786

Case Ref: FS50105898
Date: 21/11/2006
Public Authority: HM Treasury
Summary: The complainant made a request for information by to Her Majesty’s Treasury for information fed into the macroeconomic model used to forecast the performance of the UK economy. The information was withheld under sections 29 (economic interests of the UK) and 35 (formulation of government policy). The Commissioner is satisfied that these exemptions were correctly applied.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 29 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 35 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50105898

Case Ref: FS50125936
Date: 21/11/2006
Public Authority: Marine Accident Investigation Branch part of Department for Transport
Summary: The complainant requested information about the basis of statistic quoted in the public authority’s 2005 Annual Report. 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. The Commissioner approached the public authority and is satisfied that they correctly estimated that the cost of complying with the complainant's requests would exceed the appropriate limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld

View PDF of decision notice FS50125936

Case Ref: FER0085943
Date: 15/11/2006
Public Authority: Salisbury District Council
Summary: The complainant requested copies of letters supporting the imposition of a tree preservation order which was imposed upon his land by Salisbury District Council. The council provided the complainant with unedited copies of the letters where the writers had consented to disclosure of their identity. Where the writers had not consented their personal information was redacted before copies of the letters were provided. The Council advised the complainant that the redacted information had been withheld under Section 40(2) of the Act. Having investigated, the Commissioner is satisfied that the information was appropriately withheld although the Environmental Information Regulations should have been applied and the information withheld under Regulation 13.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 13(1) – Complaint Not Upheld, EIR 13(2)(a)(i) – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FER0085943

Case Ref: FER0078604
Date: 14/11/2006
Public Authority: Stafford Borough Council
Summary: The complainant asked Stafford Borough Council for a copy of legal advice supplied to it by its legal adviser in connection with a planning dispute. The request was declined by the council on the basis that the information was subject to legal professional privilege and was therefore exempt under section 42 of the Act. After requesting a copy of the withheld information and further information about the refusal, the Commissioner concluded that although the request should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the claim that the information was subject to legal professional privilege nevertheless applied and the information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of regulation 12(5)(b). The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(5)(b) – Complaint Not Upheld.

View PDF of decision notice FER0078604

October

Case Ref: FS50086919
Date: 31/10/2006
Public Authority: Department for Constitutional Affairs
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for the number of claims allocated to individual Queen's Bench Masters and the number of claims struck out by individual Queen's Bench Masters for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The public authority advised the complainant that the statistical information requested had not previously been compiled and was not therefore held by the public authority. Having considered the information available the Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested by the complainant is not held by the public authority. Although the information could be extracted from existing court files the Act places no obligation on a public authority to create new information in response to a request. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has partially upheld this appeal..
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50086919

Case Ref: FS50071069
Date: 25/10/2006
Public Authority: Epsom and St. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust
Summary: The decision concerns a request made for records held by an NHS Trust relating to an individual, now deceased. The request was refused on the grounds that a duty of confidence was owed to the deceased and that as this would still be actionable the information was therefore exempt under section 41 of the Act. After requesting a copy of the withheld information and a further explanation of the refusal the Commissioner concluded that the section 41 exemption was valid. In addition, some of the requested information was subject to legal professional privilege and was therefore exempt under section 42. However, the Commissioner also concluded that the Trust had not fully complied with section 17 of the Act when refusing the original request. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50071069

Case Ref: FS50118284
Date: 23/10/2006
Public Authority: Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Summary: The complainant made a request for legislation applying to a particular situation. The public authority responded by detailing the legislation that applied and advising the complainant where he could obtain access to copies of this information. The complainant was dissatisfied with the public authority’s response and complained about this on two occasions. Within these complaints he also made two further requests for information. The public authority reviewed their response to the original request but did not provide any information in relation to the later requests. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority responded to the later requests and refused to release some information under the section 42 exemption for legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 17 and section 10 of the Act, and that the section 42 exemption is upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50118284

Case Ref: FS50070854
Date: 23/10/2006
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: On 12 January 2005 the complainant sought disclosure from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of information relating to; the UK – US Energy dialogue; the Cheney Task Force; forecasts about peak oil production, and US attempts to seek exclusive oil agreements. Subsequently, on 18 February 2005, he also asked for a list of documents falling within the scope of the request. In relation to the initial request the FCO provided the information relating to forecasts but withheld the remainder, citing sections 27 and (subsequently) 35 (1) (a). The FCO declined to provide a schedule of documents on the grounds that the Act did not require it to create new information. Following confirmation of this decision on review, the complainant appealed to the Commissioner. Having viewed the information, the Commissioner accepted that most of the information had been correctly withheld under the exemptions cited but considered that some information could be released. The Commissioner did not accept the FCO argument that the production of a list of relevant documents constituted the creation of new information but nevertheless thought that the exemptions in respect of the substantive information applied here also.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 35 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50070854

Case Ref: FS50076855
Date: 23/10/2006
Public Authority: Legal Services Commission
Summary: The complainant requested information on the amount of money his opponent in legal proceedings had received in legal aid. The Legal Services Commission refused the request on the basis that the information constituted personal data about the complainant’s opponent and so was exempt under section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner agrees with the LSC that the information is personal data. Furthermore, although it is likely that some of the information requested was already known by the complainant as a consequence of his involvement in the legal proceedings, disclosing the information to the public at large, which is the test under section 40(2), would breach the Data Protection Act 1998. Therefore the information is exempt and the Commissioner upholds the LSC’s decision to refuse the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50076855

Case Ref: FS50086169
Date: 23/10/2006
Public Authority: The Chief Officer of South Yorkshire Police
Summary: The complainant requested information about which safety camera was responsible for the highest number of prosecutions. The public authority withheld this information under section 31 of the Act. After consideration of whether this exemption was applied correctly, including consideration of the public interest, the Commissioner has upheld the decision of the public authority to withhold this information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50086169

Case Ref: FS50105213
Date: 23/10/2006
Public Authority: Treasury Solicitors (TSOL)
Summary: The complainant is the subject of a civil proceedings order issued under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The Complainant wrote to the Attorney General’s Office to request information related to the making of this order. The request was transferred to the Treasury Solicitors who refused the request on the grounds that the request could be characterised as vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has decided that the request was vexatious and that the Treasury Solicitors dealt with the request in accordance with the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50105213

Case Ref: FS50093735
Date: 20/10/2006
Public Authority: Horsham District Council
Summary: The complainant made a number of requests to the public authority for information relating to her land and the property situated on it and alleged that the public authority had not provided any advice and assistance. The public authority provided the limited information which it held and offered to make available that which the complainant had not yet seen. The public authority confirmed that no further relevant information was held. The complainant disputed that the public authority did not hold any further information relating to her property. The Commissioner decided that the public authority did not hold any further information and had provided advice and assistance and so did not uphold the complainant save for technical breaches. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50093735

Case Ref: FS50090387
Date: 19/10/2006
Public Authority: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Summary: The complainant asked the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) to provide information about both the sale price of two London properties and the dates on which they had been sold. Information on one property was not held, and that relating to the other was withheld under s.44, with the Commissioners for the Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA) and the Taxes Management Act 1970 acting as a statutory bar - VOA stated that this made it an offence for their officials to disclose information about an individual’s tax affairs without the taxpayer’s authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from release, but that section 40 was more applicable to some of the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50090387

Case Ref: FS50076356
Date: 19/10/2006
Public Authority: City of London Police
Summary: The complainant requested to be provided with certain copies of legal advice obtained by the public authority. The public authority declined relying upon an exemption under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act (“section 42”) claiming legal professional privilege and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner has considered the public authority’s file and the legal advice in question as a result of which he is satisfied that the public authority has properly applied section 42.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50076356

Case Ref: FER0102126
Date: 17/10/2006
Public Authority: Brighton and Hove District Council
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning refuse collection and complained that the response to his request was inadequate and was not provided within 20 working days. The Commissioner agreed that a response had not been given within the timescale provided by the Act. He also found that although a good deal of information had been provided to the complainant, one part of the request had not been properly answered. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the public authority responded to the aspect of the information request that it had previously failed to address. There is no evidence available to the Commissioner that suggests that further relevant recorded information has been withheld from the complainant. As there is no outstanding breach of The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 remedial action by the public authority is not required. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal. 
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5(1) - Complaint Upheld , EIR 5(2) - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0102126

Case Ref: FS50091688
Date: 17/10/2006
Public Authority: Department of the Environment (NI)
Summary: The complainant, on 3 May 2005, requested information from the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland in respect of the legal opinion provided to the Department in relation to the demolition of the building known as “Rock Castle.” The Department withheld the information on the basis that it is exempt under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”). The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information falls within the terms of this exemption and that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Additionally the Commissioner is satisfied that the Department did not comply with section 17(3)(b) of the Act in that the it did not state in its refusal notice to the complainant the reasons for claiming that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Department did not demonstrate, in its refusal notice, any consideration of the public interest arguments in favour of disclosure. However, in other respects, the Commissioner finds that it has dealt with the complainant's request in accordance with Part 1 of the Act. In the light if this, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken to achieve compliance with the requirements of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld

View PDF of Decision Notice FS50091688

Case Ref: FS50102437
Date: 17/10/2006
Public Authority: National Archives
Summary: The complainant originally made the following request: "I would wish to apply under freedom of information for any information in the areas and on the grounds as set out in the attached letter to Buckingham Palace held by the National archives in relation to the Princess Margaret Townsend affair, and or any illegitimate child born on or about 05/01/55 to Princess Margaret." He subsequently made 637 requests "on the grounds previously stated" to individual closed documents displayed in the National Archives’ (TNA) on-line catalogue and for the descriptions of documents where the file titles were not publicly available. The Commissioner considered representations from both parties and has decided that TNA has correctly applied sections 12 and 14 of the Act with regard to the cost limit and repeated requests. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal..
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50102437

Case Ref: FS50083791
Date: 12/10/2006
Public Authority: National Assembly for Wales
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the Minister’s decision not to hold an enquiry into the suspension of an NHS employee. The public authority did not provide a substantive response for over six months, and then only released some information whilst redacting further information, citing the exemptions at sections 40 (third party personal data) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOI Act. The Commissioner has decided that, for the majority of redactions under section 40 and all the redactions under section 42, the public authority applied the Act correctly. However his decision is that, in a minority of instances, the public authority redacted information under section 40 that should not have been withheld. Accordingly, the Commissioner requires the public authority to release some extra information to the complainant. The Commissioner further finds that the public authority also breached sections 10 (time for compliance) and 16 (duty to provide advice and assistance) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 50 - Complaint Partially Upheld , FOI 42 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50083791

Case Ref: FS50128761
Date: 10/10/2006
Public Authority: Information Commissioner
Summary: The complainant requested the residential addresses of all the Information Commissioner’s current salaried staff. The request was refused on the basis that the information constitutes personal data and was provided to the Commissioner by his employees in confidence. Sections 40 and 41 respectively are therefore being relied upon. This Decision Notice does not uphold the complaint made and agrees that the exemptions have been applied correctly.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50128761

Case Ref: FS50073130
Date: 09/10/2006
Public Authority: Devon and Cornwall Constabularly
Summary: The complainant requested a number of pieces of information relating to an investigation carried out by the Constabulary. This request was refused citing sections 30(1)(a) and 40 of the Act. After reviewing the withheld information and the arguments of both sides, the Commissioner concluded that the exemption had been validly applied and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50073130

Case Ref: FS50132936
Date: 05/10/2006
Public Authority: Office of Government Commerce
Summary: This Decision Notice has been issued against the OGC following communications between the Commissioner, HM Treasury and the OGC, subsequent to which it has been accepted that the information requested by the complainant in the case of FS50083104 was in fact a request to the OGC and not HM Treasury. The Decision Notice issued against the Treasury in the case of FS50083104 has therefore now been withdrawn and the Commissioner substitutes this one against the OGC. This Decision Notice explains the reasoning behind the Commissioner’s decision.The complainant made a request to know the traffic light status awarded to Gateway Reviews of the Identity cards programme which had been carried out by the OGC. The OGC refused to provide the information on the grounds that it related to the formulation and development of government policy (s.35) and that disclosure would prejudice the exercise of the OGC’s audit functions (s.33).The Commissioner’s decision is that the public interest lies in the release of the information and that its release will not prejudice the exercise of the OGC’s audit functions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 33 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 35 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50132936

Case Ref: FS50081576
Date: 05/10/2006
Public Authority: Department of Culture Arts and Leisure
Summary: The complainant requested a report regarding the conduct of the Chief Executive of Waterways Ireland, including the investigation of allegations made by the complainant. The department responded by providing the complainant’s personal data but exempting the rest of the report under sections 27 (international relations), 36 (prejudice to the conduct of public affairs), 41 (confidence) and 40 (personal data). The Commissioner has decided that information was wrongly withheld, but as it has now been provided to the complainant no steps are specified. The department also breached s.17 by not providing an adequate refusal notice. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 36 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50081576

Case Ref: FS50086317
Date: 05/10/2006
Public Authority: HM Treasury
Summary: On 3 February 2005 the complainant requested information as to the names and background of all candidates for the 2002 appointment of Governor of the Bank of England. The Treasury refused to disclose this information placing reliance upon the personal information exemption under section 40 Freedom of information Act upholding its decision on review. Upon considering a complaint dated 12 August 2005 the Commissioner upheld the decision to withhold the information as exempt under section 40 of the Act save for the information requested as to the background of the successful candidate Mr Mervyn King which was considered exempt from disclosure under the information reasonably accessible by other means exemption under section 21 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 21 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50086317

Case Ref: FS50066289
Date: 04/10/2006
Public Authority: Gateshead Council
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information which it held about the British National Party and the Tyne and Wear Anti - Fascist Association (TWAFA). In its response the Council said that it held no information about the BNP. It made available to the complainant all information held on TWAFA but redacted the names and contact details of individuals and groups, citing the exemption contained in section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Council also withheld three documents because it considered that the information contained within them was exempt by virtue of section 42 of the Act. However, having reviewed the position, the Council later provided two of these documents to the complainant. The Commissioner has decided that sections 38 and 42 are engaged in this case and that the public interest lies in favour of maintaining those exemptions. He has also decided that section 40 is engaged in respect of certain personal information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 38 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50066289

Case Ref: FS50090750
Date: 03/10/2006
Public Authority: Chief Constable Northumbria Police
Summary: The complainant requested access to information on the files relating to another individual, held by the Northumbria Police. Following an investigation of the complaint, the Commissioner has decided that the information requested by the complainant constitutes the personal data of another individual in accordance with Section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 and consequently, the information is exempt under Section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information should not be released and that the public authority therefore dealt with the complainants request in accordance with part 1 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50090750 

Case Ref: FER0086096
Date: 02/10/2006
Public Authority: Port of London Authority
Summary: The complainant made a request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 to the Port of London Authority for information regarding the reconstruction and development works carried out to Temple Pier between 1 January 1988 and 1 January 1991. The PLA stated that it was not subject to the EIR but supplied some information to the complainant. The complainant was not satisfied with the information supplied because the PLA did not supply key information in the form of licenses. This Decision Notice requires the PLA to either provide the complainant with the information requested or issue a refusal notice, specifying which exception(s) it believes to be applicable. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0086096

Case Ref: FS50071454
Date: 02/10/2006
Public Authority: City and County of Swansea
Summary: The complainant requested to know the cash pay off figure for a former Chief Executive of the City and County of Swansea who retired in 2002. The public authority refused to disclose the information on the basis that the withheld information was personal information and that disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act. It specified FOIA section 40 as the relevant exemption from its duty to disclose this information. It also applied s.41 of the FOIA in that disclosure would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by the employee. Having examined the personal information caught by the scope of this request, the Commissioner has decided that the public authority has correctly applied FOIA section 40 in the circumstances of this case. In view of the fact that the Commissioner considers the most appropriate exemption in this case to be s.40 he has not considered the application of s.41 in this Decision Notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50071454

September

Case Ref: FS50091493
Date: 28/09/2006
Public Authority: Department for Constitutional Affairs
Summary: The complainant requested the name of the head of a unit within the Legal Services Commission, the instructions given to one of the public authority’s employees when writing to the complainant and any cover note written by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, which accompanied the complainant’s “critique” when it was transferred from his office to the public authority. The public authority failed to respond to his request under the Act and a complaint was subsequently made to the Commissioner. The Commissioner accepts that the information requested has now been supplied or is not held by the public authority. However, the public authority has breached the time for compliance specified by section 10 of the Act.

Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 11 - Complaint Upheld

View PDF of Decision Notice FS50091493

Case Ref: FER0087051
Date: 28/09/2006
Public Authority: Department for Communities and Local Government
Summary: The complainant requested recommendations that were made by the Government Office of the East Midlands to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which subsequently led to two linked planning applications being ‘called in’. The public authority claimed that the recommendations constituted internal communications and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner is satisfied that the authority applied the exception correctly. However, after careful consideration, the Commissioner disagrees with the authority’s assessment of the public interest and therefore, requires the authority to release the requested information within 30 days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(4)(e) - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0087051

Case Ref: FS50065853
Date: 28/09/2006
Public Authority: Wolverhampton City Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the investments made by the Council in its role as the administrator of the West Midlands Pension Fund. The Council refused to supply some of the information on the basis that it was subject to a confidentiality agreement between it and various investment organisations (section 41), and that a disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of some of the parties involved, (section 43). The Commissioner's decision is that the information should be disclosed on the basis that the public interest in knowing that public funds are being invested wisely overrides the public interest in protecting confidentiality in this instance. The Commissioner also believes that a disclosure would not prejudice the commercial interests of any party. This case was under appeal to the Information Tribunal and has since been withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld 
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50065853

Case Ref: FS50077716
Date: 28/09/2006
Public Authority: Chief Officer South Wales Police
Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority about allegations of mistreatment, neglect and abuse at premises operated by an NHS Trust. The public authority responded by asking the requestor to narrow down his request, which he did. The public authority then refused the request by virtue of section 12, stating that the cost of complying would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’. The Commissioner sought evidence to show that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit, and a member of his staff visited the authority to view its records management systems. The Commissioner has decided that, in this case, the authority applied the Act appropriately by refusing the request by virtue of section 12 and in particular the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. However, he also finds that the authority did not deal with the request in accordance with the requirements of Part I of the Act because it exceeded the time for compliance, as set out in section 10 of the Act. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld 
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50077716

Case Ref: FS50118362
Date: 27/09/06
Public Authority: Wansbeck District Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on 5 December 2005 about payments made by the council for legal advice relating to a specific issue.  The Council claims to have responded to this request, but the complainant has alleged that he has not received the information. On 10 July 2006 the complainant asked for this information to be resent. He did not receive a response. The Commissioner asked for the information to be sent again to the complainant, and for copies to be sent to him. The Council claims to have sent the information again, to both the complainant and the Commissioner, however neither party has received it. The Commissioner considers that the Council has failed to respond to the request of 10 July 2006 and has therefore breached the Act.  The Commissioner considers that it is more likely than not that the Council has failed to comply with its obligations under the Act in relation to the request of 5 December 2005.  The Commissioner requires the Council to supply the complainant with the information requested.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 – Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50118362

Case Ref: FS50129941
Date: 27/09/2006
Public Authority: Leeds City Council
Summary: The complainant requested financial details of individuals (without names) from within his department where he worked at the Council who had received voluntary early retirement. The information was withheld under s.40 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the public authority has dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with Part I of the Act in respect of the exemption applied but not fully in relation to the Refusal Notice provided.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld 
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50129941

Case Ref: FS50085780
Date: 27/09/2006
Public Authority: NHS Litigation Authority
Summary: The complainant made a request for the name and address of the public authority staff member who had made a specific decision in the processing of her case with them. The public authority refused this information citing the exemption provided at section 40 of the Act for personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is to uphold the public authority’s application of section 40 to withhold the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld 
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50085780

Case Ref: FS50068004
Date: 26/09/06
Public Authority: Boston Grammar School
Summary: The complainant requested information in respect of a disciplinary hearing meeting involving a teacher at the school. The Commissioner found that the school failed to clearly confirm or deny which aspects of the requested information it holds. The Commissioner found that some of the information requested is not recorded information for the purposes of section 84 of the Act and therefore is not held by the school. The school also withheld a copy of disciplinary hearing meeting minutes on the basis that it is exempt from disclosure under sections 40(2) and 41. The Commissioner found that on the basis of the information available to the school at the time of the request it had correctly applied the exemptions under sections 40(2) and 41of the Act. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the data subject who is the focus of the minutes consented to disclosure of his personal information under the Act. As the minutes contain the personal data of other third parties the Commissioner considered that it would be necessary to redact the personal information of these third parties and disclose the remainder. Therefore, the Commissioner found that disclosure of a redacted copy of the Minutes would not breach sections 40(2) or 41 of the Act. The Commissioner also found that the school has not complied with its obligations under section 17 of the Act in so far as the refusal notice issued by the school did not comply with the requirements set out in that section.
Section of Act: FOI s.1(1) Complaint partially upheld, FOI s.17- Complaint upheld, FOI s.40(2)- Complaint not upheld, FOI s.41- Complaint not upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50068004

Case Ref: FS50105734
Date: 25/09/2006
Public Authority: Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a report prepared by the public authority on the hull of a steamship in the process of construction. The public authority declined relying upon an exemption under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 indicating that release of the information would prejudice or be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of both the public authority and the builder of the steamship and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner raised a number of enquiries with the public authority regarding both the process of and purpose for the preparation of the report in addition to considering the report itself as a consequence of which the Commissioner finds that the public authority incorrectly applied the section 43 exemption. The public authority is accordingly directed to release the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld 
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50105734

Case Ref: FS50087886
Date: 21/09/2006
Public Authority: The Department for Social Development Northern Ireland
Summary: The complainants requested information from the Department for Social Development relating to complaints made against the Community Development Agency between 2000 and 2005. The Department withheld the information, relying on the exemptions under sections 30, 38, 40, 41 and 44 of the Act. Following discussion with the Commissioner, the Department provided some of the information requested. The Commissioner is satisfied that the remainder of the information is exempt under section 41, and does not therefore require the Department to take any further steps in relation to the complainants’ request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld 
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50087886

Case Ref: FS50123357
Date: 21/09/2006
Public Authority: Department of Education (NI)
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Department of Education for Northern Ireland (the Department) relating to the financial situation of the South Eastern Education and Library Board. The Department provided some of the information to the complainant, withholding other information in reliance on the exemption under section 22 of the Act (intended for future publication). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information, consisting of a KPMG report dated 28 February 2006, was exempt but should nevertheless have been disclosed in the public interest, and he has therefore ordered the Department to release this information to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 22 - Complaint Upheld 
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50123357

Case Ref: FS50130467
Date: 20/09/2006
Public Authority: Crown Prosecution Service
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to evidence that he submitted to the CPS in connection with an alleged criminal offence. The CPS deemed the request as vexatious having had correspondence with the complainant for a number of years. Having investigated this case, the Commissioner is satisfied that the application of section 14 by the public authority was correct.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld 
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50130467

Case Ref: FS50087563
Date: 20/09/06
Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service
Summary: The complainant requested details of policies and the individuals responsible for those policies within the public authority. The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is two fold in that the Public Authority has not dealt with the Complainant’s request in accordance with Part I of the Act in that it has failed to comply with its obligations under section 1(1), section 10 and section 17. Further, the Public Authority has applied section 21 and their application of this is in part, upheld by the Commissioner as he is satisfied that the policies are available but not the individuals’ names. The Public Authority is required by this Decision Notice to provide some of the information requested (as detailed below) within 35 days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 – Complaint Upheld; FOI s.21 – Complaint Partially Upheld; FOI s.17 – Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50087563

Case Ref: FS50073305
Date: 20/09/06
Public Authority: Hull City Council
Summary: The complainant asked whether the council’s senior legal officer had declared her private business interests as required by the council’s code of conduct. The Council confirmed that the officer had done so at all times. The complainant also asked for documentary proof. The Council withheld several documents on the grounds that they contained personal information, that they had been provided in confidence and that their release was prohibited by statute. The Commissioner decided that the documentation and the information they contained was exempt from disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.40 – Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50073305

Case Ref: FS50075765
Date: 19/09/06
Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
Summary: The complainant requested information on the compatibility of the Financial Services and Markets Act with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act from the Financial Services Authority. Although the authority did not hold the information as specifically described it did hold information of a similar nature which fell within the scope of the request. The authority refused to supply the information on the grounds that the exemption in section 42 of the Act applied, (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is applicable to the information, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.42 – Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50075765

Case Ref: FS50104386
Date: 19/09/06
Public Authority: HM Treasury
Summary: The complainant requested all information provided to HM Treasury by the Department of Health concerning an announcement made in the budget statement of 2 July 1997 of the intention to recoup from insurers the full cost of treating road accident victims. The public authority stated that no such information was held. Following his investigation, the Commissioner has found that the public authority failed to respond to the information request within 20 working days. This breach does not necessitate remedial action. The Commissioner has found no evidence that would suggest that the information requested is held by the public authority and does not, therefore, find any breach of Part 1 of the Act in this regard. This case was under appeal to the Information Tribunal and has since been withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 – Complaint Not Upheld; FOI s. 10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50104386

Case Ref: FS50091810
Date: 18/09/06
Public Authority: Information Commissioner
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a letter received by the UK government and copied to the Commissioner regarding alleged deficiencies in the implementation of Directive 95/46/EC by the UK. Although the Commissioner accepts that in some respects the request could have been better handled, in particular the manner of the refusal of the request, he remains of the view that he was correct not to communicate the requested information to the complainant. In the light of that conclusion, the notice requires no further action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.27 – Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50091810

Case Ref: FS50110720
Date: 18/09/06
Public Authority: Department for Constitutional Affairs
Summary: The complaint requested a copy of a letter from the European Commission to the UK government regarding alleged deficiencies in the implementation of Directive 95/46/EC by the UK. He also requested a copy of the UK government’s response to that letter. Although the complainant put forward compelling arguments in favour of disclosure of the requested information, the Commissioner took the view that the DCA was correct not to communicate the requested information to the complainant. In the light of that conclusion, the notice requires no further action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding:  FOI s.27 – Complaint Not Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50110720

Case Ref: FER0102787
Date: 13/09/2006
Public Authority: Westminster City Council
Summary: On 6 September 2005 the complainant requested, under the Freedom of Information Act, information related to a possible change in planning use in Westminster’s Dolphin Square and the Dolphin Square Hotel. The public authority did not respond to the request until 9 January 2006. Whilst the public authority dealt with the request under the Freedom of Information Act, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the information was of a predominantly environmental nature and that the request should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations. Consequently the Commissioner finds that, in dealing with the request, the public authority breached regulation 5.(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5(2) - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0102787

Case Ref: FS50097376
Date: 11/09/06
Public Authority: The Welsh Development Agency (now part of the National Assembly for Wales)
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to a proposed town centre redevelopment project. The public authority informed the complainant that the information requested was held, but refused to release it, citing the exemption at section 43(2) of the Act. The public authority argued that disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of the private sector developers bringing forward the project and of the public authority itself, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.  The Commissioner reviewed the information withheld and has decided that the public authority applied the Act correctly in withholding the information in accordance with the section 43(2) exemption.  However, the Commissioner finds that the public authority initially breached the requirements of section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.43.2. – Complaint Not Upheld; FOI s.17 – Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50097376

Case Ref: FER0072933
Date: 11/09/06
Public Authority: Ofcom
Summary: T he complainant requested data about each mobile phone base station held within the Sitefinder database together with the national grid references for each site. The complainant requested that the information be provided as a text file, csv file, access database or Excel spreadsheet. Ofcom initially refused the request citing Regulation 6 (1) (b) which refers to information already publicly available. At the internal review stage Ofcom decided that in fact the complete database that had been requested was not all available in the public domain. Therefore it refused to provide the database relying upon Regulations 12 (5) (a) (National Security and Public Safety exception) and (c) (Intellectual Property Rights exception). The Commissioner found that the public authority did not comply with the Environmental Information Regulations in refusing to provide the information. The Commissioner did not consider that disclosure would adversely affect national security, public safety or intellectual property rights. Therefore he has ordered Ofcom to disclose the requested information to the complainant. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR r.12(5)(a) – Complaint Upheld; EIR r.12(5)(c) – Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FER0072933

Case Ref: FS50067986
Date: 07/09/06
Public Authority: House of Commons
Summary: The complainant requested disclosure of the travel allowance claimed by a specific MP for the year in which they were announced namely 2002-2003 broken down by car travel, rail travel,air travel and taxi travel together with total cost of travel claimed for a spouse. An aggregate figure for travel expenses for each MP is already published but this figure is not broken down into different categories of transport, as the complainant requested, and also excludes the cost of travel claimed for the spouse. The House of Commons withheld the information on the basis that it was exempt under section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner found that the requested information is personal information which can be disclosed without contravening any of the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 and, consequently, that the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the Act does not apply. Therefore the Commissioner's dec