Case Ref: FS50095679
Date: 28/02/2007
Public Authority: Office of Government Commerce
Summary: The complainant requested copies of eight letters sent by the OGC to the relevant Permanent Secretaries following their department’s projects receiving a double red warning in Gateway reports and any replies from the Permanent Secretaries. The OGC disclosed edited copies of the letters but refused to disclose them in full on the grounds that the information requested was subject to section 33 of the Act ‘Audit Functions’ and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner investigated whether section 33 of the Act applied to the requested information and found that the exemption was not engaged as the OGC had failed to demonstrate that release of the information would, or would be likely to prejudice the exercise of any of its audit functions. The Commissioner’s decision is to uphold the complaint and order the OGC to disclose the requested information within 35 calendar days from date of this notice. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 33 - Complaint upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50095679
Case Ref: FS50074788
Date: 27/02/2007
Public Authority: Northern Ireland Office
Summary: The Information Commissioner’s (the Commissioner) decision in this matter is that the Northern Ireland Office (the ‘NIO’) has failed to deal with the complainant’s request in accordance with the requirements of Part I of the Freedom of Information Act (the ‘Act’). That is because the Commissioner considers that the NIO incorrectly applied the section 31(1)(a) exemption to the requested information as a “blanket” exemption to the request. In addition, the NIO failed to provide an adequate refusal notice under section 17 of the Act. Also the NIO failed to provide to the applicant adequate advice and assistance in order to clarify his request in accordance with section 16 of the Act. However, as a result of the intervention of the Commissioner, some of the requested information has now been disclosed. In relation to the remaining information (the ‘withheld information’), the Commissioner is satisfied that the NIO has correctly withheld this information and that it is exempt by virtue of sections 23, 24, 31, 36, 40(2), 41 and 42 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 - Complaint Partially Upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 23 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 24 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50074788
Case Ref: FS50111780
Date: 26/02/2007
Public Authority: County Durham NHS Primary Care Trust
Summary: The complainant requested a summary of the medical care provided to her late daughter. This request was sent to Easington NHS Primary Care Trust, the responsibilities of which have now passed to County Durham NHS Primary Care Trust. In order to provide this information it would have necessitated providing information from the deceased person’s medical records. The public authority refused to provide this information and cited the exemption at section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”), stating that the applicant was not the deceased person’s next of kin. Further to this the public authority noted that the deceased person had expressed a wish to her GP for details of her healthcare not to be disclosed to her parents. After examining the submissions by both parties the Commissioner concluded that the use of section 41 was valid. However, the Commissioner also concluded that the public authority initially issued an inadequate refusal notice, and therefore did not comply with section 17 when refusing the original request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50111780
Case Ref: FS50092819
Date: 22/02/2007
Public Authority: University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for the names, job titles, working patterns and various salary details of a number of doctors working on a specific hospital ward. The public authority initially considered all of the requested information to be exempt under section 40. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority released the doctors’ names, job titles and salary bands. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is correct to continue to rely on section 40 as a basis to refuse to release details of the doctor’s gross salaries, additional payments and average number of hours each doctor worked. With regard to the information about the additional payments and average number of hours worked, the public authority also explained to the Commissioner that to provide this information would exceed the appropriate cost limit and therefore was also refusing to provide this information on the basis of section 12. The Commissioner has investigated this claim and accepts that this information could not be provided within the cost limit. However, the Commissioner has decided that when originally refusing the request, the public authority provided the complainant with an inadequate refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Partially Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50092819
Case Ref: FS50081402
Date: 22/02/2007
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning legal advice received by the public authority on the issue of whether the television licence fee is compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998. The public authority confirmed that information falling within the scope of this request is held by it. However, this information was withheld on the grounds that it attracted legal professional privilege and thus that the exemption provided by section 42 applied. The public authority also found that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 42 applies to the information requested in this case. The Commissioner further finds that in this case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. However, the Commissioner also found that the public authority did not comply with its obligations under section 17 of the Act pertaining to refusal notices. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50081402
Case Ref: FS50104384
Date: 22/02/2007
Public Authority: Bridgend County Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority relating to reports prepared by the environmental health officers of Bridgend County Borough Council in respect of John Tudor & Sons, a large scale meat supplier based in the Authority. The complainant indicated that the request was to cover such reports prepared during the three years preceding the request. The public authority initially refused the request by virtue of Regulation 12 (5) (b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. However, in subsequent correspondence, with the complainant, the Authority sought to rely on sections 22, 30 and 31 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000 stating that the information requested constituted evidence that would be utilised in a current criminal investigation as well as a pending public inquiry. The Commissioner sought evidence to evaluate the Authority’s position and a member of his staff visited the public authority to examine the reports that were the subject of the original request. The Commissioner decided, in this case, the authority applied the Act appropriately by refusing the request by virtue of section 30. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, who have ruled that the appeal should be allowed and the decision overturned.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50104384
Case Ref: FS50117048
Date: 22/02/2007
Public Authority: Chief Officer South Yorkshire Police
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a photograph of a police crew bus caught speeding. The public authority refused to release the information on the basis it was exempt under sections 30, 38 and 40 of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions at sections 38 and 40 were not engaged and that whilst section 30 was engaged, the public interest in disclosing the information was not outweighed by the public interest in withholding it. Consequently, the complaint is upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 38 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50117048
Case Ref: FS50130322
Date: 22/02/2007
Public Authority: Department for Transport
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to a visit Alistair Darling, the then Secretary of State for Transport, had made in March 2003 to the site of the proposed A57/A628 Tintwistle and Mottram bypass. The public authority responded to this request stating that it did not hold the information requested, but the complainant disputed this. Following investigations, the Commissioner is satisfied that public authority does not hold any information covered by the scope of the request and therefore the complainant’s request has been dealt with in accordance with Part 1 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50130322
Case Ref: FS50137037
Date: 22/02/2007
Public Authority: Hertfordshire County Council
Summary: The complainant asked for information relating to a correction that was made in The Fire and Rescue Community Safety Plan Topic Group Report. Initially the complainant asked for evidence of the correction being made by the Executive Member and, following a letter of clarification from the Council, the complainant submitted a further request for evidence of both the Chief Fire Officer and the Executive Member having made the correction. The Commissioner investigated and found that Council had not met the duty to confirm or deny whether it holds information under section 1 of the Act in relation to either request. He asked the Council to review its response to both requests and it subsequently confirmed that it holds no records of the Executive Member making the correction but the Chief Fire Officer had sent an email about the correction which had not been retained. Following the Commissioner’s request that the Council explain what checks had been made, the Council located a copy of the email and supplied it to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50137037
Case Ref: FS50070185
Date: 20/02/2007
Public Authority: North Tyneside Council
Summary: The complainant asked the Council for information which it held about the British National Party (BNP) and the Tyne and Wear Anti-Fascist Association (TWAFA). In its response the Council said that it held no information about the BNP. It provided to the complainant limited information about one grant made to TWAFA and a summary of a letter from TWAFA in relation to its grant. The Council withheld copies of the minutes of meetings of the Racial Incidents Working Group (RIWG) and did not inform the complainant of its existence. The Council applied the exemptions contained in sections 31(1)(a), 38(1)(a) and (b) and 40(3)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act to the information withheld. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the Council identified further relevant information (including a report by the RIWG), which it provided to the complainant after redacting information giving personal details about TWAFA staff. The Commissioner has decided that sections 38 and 40 are engaged, and that the public interest lay in favour of maintaining the section 38 exemption. However, he has decided that a copy of one of TWAFA’s audited annual reports, and redacted extracts of the RIWG minutes should be released to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 38 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50070185
Case Ref: FS50127442
Date: 19/02/2007
Public Authority: Liverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a medical report written by a Consultant regarding the care of his late mother. This report was written by the Consultant following a visit to her home in 1991. The public authority offered to provide the complainant with a copy of the report under the Access to Health Records Act 1990, on receipt of proof that he was the deceased person’s personal representative. The public authority went on to state that they would accept a copy of his birth certificate as proof. The public authority refused to disclose the information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and cited the exemption at section 21 of the Act. Having considered both parties submissions the Commissioner found that the public authority had been correct in claiming the section 21 exemption. However, the Commissioner also concluded that the public authority had not complied with section 17(1), as it had failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 21 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50127442
Case Ref: FER0086605
Date: 15/02/2007
Public Authority: Lincolnshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested copies of statements made by individuals about their use of the supposed route of a public footpath. The public authority released copies of statements where the writers consented but refused to release the remaining statements on the basis they were exempt under section 40 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 Regulations 12 (5)(f). The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has partially upheld this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(5)(f) – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FER0086605
Case Ref: FS50117259
Date: 15/02/2007
Public Authority: Derbyshire Constabulary
Summary: The complainant made requests for over 50 pieces of information to the member organisations of Derbyshire Safety Camera Partnership (‘DSCP’). The requests were made over a total of 19 occasions and were all related to an alleged road traffic offence. The complainant received relevant information and advice in relation to his requests, until he made a request dated 7 March 2006 to Derbyshire Constabulary. This request was considered by the police to be vexatious and repeated. DSCP responded on behalf of the Constabulary and refused to provide information citing section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner considered that the requests were made to different DSCP partners, each separately recognised by the Act, and determined that the requests could not be aggregated for the purpose of applying section 14. In an attempt to resolve the complaint informally the Constabulary was asked to reconsider its refusal and to supply to the complainant the requested information. The Constabulary agreed to this proposal and provided the complainant with additional information. The Commissioner’s decision is that initially the Constabulary failed to comply with section 1 (1) of the Act, inappropriately relying on section 14. However, following his intervention, further information has now been supplied to the applicant and the Commissioner is satisfied that the Constabulary has now complied with the requirements of Part I of the Act. Therefore he has not ordered the Constabulary to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50117259
Case Ref: FS50123489
Date: 13/02/2007
Public Authority: London Borough of Camden
Summary: The complainant asked Camden Council to provide him with the identities of all residents who had been made the subject of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs). The council provided the complainant with an edited version of its ASBO database. Information that could identify individuals was withheld by the council under sections 31 and 40 of the Act. The Commissioner is not satisfied that section 31 was engaged. He decided that the council was wrong to rely on section 40 to redact the names of all the individual recipients of ASBOs but that redaction could be justified in some cases. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a full version of its ASBO database but after redaction of names in those cases where: reporting restrictions were imposed by the court at the original ASBO hearing or at any hearing for breach; the ASBO did not proceed beyond interim status; the public authority is satisfied that the ASBO recipient is particularly vulnerable and would be put at real risk by disclosure; or the ASBO has now expired. An appeal was made to the Tribunal who have ruled and overturned the decision.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50123489
Case Ref: FS50118209
Date: 13/02/2007
Public Authority: Chief Officer of Sussex Police
Summary: The complainant requested investigation information relating to a serious allegation that was made against him. The public authority refused to provide this information citing Section 30(1) and Section 30(2) (Information obtained during an investigation), Section 38 (Health and Safety), Section 40(1) (Personal Data relating to the applicant) and Section 40(2) (Unfair Disclosure of Personal Data). The Commissioner has decided that the public authority should have specified in its refusal notice that it did not hold some of the requested information. In failing to do so, it contravened the requirements of Section 1(1) (a) of the Act. In relation to the withheld information, the Commissioner has decided that it was exempt under Section 30(1). The Commissioner has also decided that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure in relation to the majority of the withheld information. However, the Commissioner has decided that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure in relation to one officer statement included in the withheld information. The Commissioner has also decided that it would not breach any of the data protection principles to disclose the names of officers mentioned in the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the specified officer statement and to disclose the names of officers mentioned in the withheld information within 35 calendar days of the date of this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 30 - Complaint Partially Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50118209
Case Ref: FS50118006
Date: 13/02/2007
Public Authority: Information Commissioner
Summary: The complainant requested for access to all the documents held by the Information Commissioner’s Office in connection with its investigation of two Freedom of Information complaints. The ICO refused to disclose the requested information citing section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. After a careful evaluation of the requested information, the information received during this investigation and the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has validly applied the exemption in section 30. Consequently the complaint is not upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50118006
Case Ref: FS50069394
Date: 13/02/2007
Public Authority: Department of Trade and Industry
Summary: The complainant, on 4 January 2005, requested information from the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to the assessment by the Department of the application for grant aid made in relation to the complainant’s wave energy conversion system. The Department withheld the information on the basis that it is exempt under sections 36, 41 and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner is satisfied that none of the withheld information falls within the terms of the exemptions under sections 41 or 43 of the Act. The Commissioner is satisfied that some of the information is exempt under section 40 (1) of the Act in that the information constitutes personal data of which the complainant is the data subject. He is also satisfied that other information is exempt under section 40 (2) of the Act in that it constitutes personal data about third parties and that disclosure would be unfair. Although the Commissioner is satisfied that the remaining information falls within the exemption set out at section 36 of the Act, he considers that the public interest in maintaining that exemption in the circumstances of this case does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of that information. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Department has not dealt with the complainant's request in accordance with Part 1 of the Act. The Commissioner requires the Department to disclose to the complainant that information which is identified in correspondence to the Department served upon it with this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 36 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50069394
Case Ref: FER0069117
Date: 12/02/2007
PublicAuthority: Staffordshire Moorlands District Council
Summary: The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with Part I of the Act. He considers that the information requested by the complainant constitutes environmental information. Therefore the information is exempt under section 39 of the Act and the request should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner is satisfied that the exceptions in Regulations 12 (4) (e) and 12 (5) (b) apply to the requested information; however, in this case the public interest in maintaining the exception does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Therefore the Council has breached Regulation 5 in failing to disclose information to the complainant. The Commissioner has therefore ordered the Council to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint upheld, EIR 12(4)(e) – Complaint not upheld, EIR 12(5)(b) – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FER0069117
Case Ref: FS50075602
Date: 12/02/2007
Public Authority: Architect Registration Board
Summary: The complainant asked for details of a settlement between the Architects Registration Board and a former Board member, including the costs of both parties. The Architects Registration Board refused, but is willing to supply information about its own costs. The Commissioner decided that the information requested was personal information the disclosure of which would breach the first data principle, and so was exempt under section 40 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50075602
Case Ref: FS50091315
Date: 12/02/2007
Public Authority: Harlow Council
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for a copy of legal advice supplied to it by its legal adviser in connection with a planning issue. The public authority withheld it under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 claiming legal professional privilege and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner found that the requested information should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Nevertheless the claim that the information was subject to legal professional privilege still applied and the information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of regulation 12(5)(b).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50091315
Case Ref: FS50094069
Date: 12/02/2007
Public Authority: Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
Summary: The complainant requested that the public authority disclose information concerning its instructions to a firm of solicitors in relation to a particular matter. The public authority provided some of the information but not all of it relying upon section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (legal professional privilege) in respect of the balance. The Commissioner has reviewed the information in question and is satisfied that the public authority has applied the section 42 exemption correctly to part of the information only. The public authority is accordingly directed to disclose the part of the information which he does not accept as being covered by the exemption in section 42. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority is in breach of section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50094069
Case Ref: FS50118679
Date: 12/02/2007
Public Authority: Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a counsel’s opinion that the public authority had obtained in relation to the enforcement of restrictive covenants. The public authority refused the request, citing the exemption at section 42 of the Act. This section allows public authorities to withhold information to which a claim of legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings, subject to a public interest test. The Commissioner finds that the information in question does attract legal professional privilege. Furthermore, the Commissioner believes that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Accordingly, the Commissioner has decided that the public authority applied the Act correctly in citing the section 42 exemption. However, the Commissioner has decided that the public authority initially breached the requirements of section 17 of the Act by issuing an inadequate refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50118679
Case Ref: FS50092946
Date: 07/02/2007
Public Authority: Canterbury City Council
Summary: The complainant made a request for all the information held by specific departments of the public authority that contained a reference to his companies. The public authority supplied some information; however the complainant believed that the public authority held further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has complied with section 1(1)(b) and section 12 as it acted reasonably in conducting proper searches and the cost of retrieving electronic information would exceed the appropriate limit. However, the public authority has breached section 10; time for compliance and section 1(1)(a) in relation to specific financial details. It has also misapplied section 42 (legal professional privilege) to some information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50092946
Case Ref: FS50128269
Date: 05/02/2007
Public Authority: The Royal Surrey County Hospital
Summary: The complainant made three requests to the public authority for copies of two x-rays taken during the course of the medical care given to her late husband. The complainant alleged that the public authority failed to respond to the first of these requests within 20 working days. The complainant also complained that the information provided in response to these requests was inadequate because of the poor quality of the first x-ray and the fact that the second x-ray did not fulfil her request. Having investigated the matter, the Commissioner has decided that the information provided did fulfil the complainant’s requests although the public authority did not respond to the first request within 20 working days. The Commissioner has also decided that the information was exempt under section 21 of the Act because it was accessible to the applicant under the Access to Health Records Act. The Commissioner has established that the public authority failed to provide the complainant with a refusal notice citing section 21.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FS50128269
Case Ref: FS50094226
Date: 05/02/2007
Public Authority: Pesticides Safety Directorate (an executive agency of the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs)
Summary: The complainant requested the public authority to provide it with lists of safety studies carried out on two named pesticide ingredients. The public authority refused, relying upon an exemption under section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 indicating that the lists were to be the subject of future publication and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. After consultation with both parties the Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority correctly applied the exemption. The Commissioner did however, on a procedural point, find the public authority in breach of section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 22 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FS50094226
Case Ref: FS50090631
Date: 05/02/2007
Public Authority: Transport for London
Summary: The complainant requested details of compensation payments made to residents of a specific road under the Land Compensation Act following the building of the A12 Hackney M11 Link Road. The public authority confirmed to the complainant the number of compensation offers that had been accepted by residents but refused to disclose details of the size of compensation payments made to each resident on the basis of the exemptions contained at section 40 and 43. The Commissioner’s decision is to uphold the public authority’s application of 40(2) to withhold the information. As the Commissioner is satisfied that the section 40(2) has been applied correctly, he has not considered the public authority’s decision to apply section 43.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50090631
Case Ref: FS50088494
Date: 05/02/2007
Public Authority: The Royal Mail Group PLC
Summary: The complainant requested, firstly, the number of complaints made to a delivery office of the Royal Mail over a specific period of time and, secondly, details of how many of these complaints were investigated and what action was taken as a result. Both parts of the request were refused on the basis that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests). The public authority also subsequently argued that responding to the second part of the complainant’s request would exceed the appropriate fees limit under section 12. The Commissioner concluded that section 43(2) was not applicable to the first part of the request but that section 12 applied to the second part of the request. In addition, he found that the public authority had not complied with section 17(5) as the refusal notice did not refer to section 12 as a basis for refusing the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50088494
Case Ref: FS50082765
Date: 05/02/2007
Public Authority: East Sussex County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority about its dealings with a named company. The public authority refused to disclose relying upon section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. As this is an absolute exemption the public authority did not have to consider the public interest. The Commissioner has considered the exempt information in question and is satisfied that the public authority has applied section 44 correctly.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FS50082765
Case Ref: FS50078600
Date: 05/02/2007
Public Authority: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Summary: The complainant initially requested all the communications and minutes of meetings between Defra and Department of Environment Northern Ireland concerning the implementation of the EC Waste Water Treatment Directive in Northern Ireland. When this was refused, on the basis of the application of a number of exceptions under the EIR, the complainant made a second request for a list of all communications including details of the date, type of communication, the sender and recipient and title. This was refused on the basis that such a list was not held by the public authority and, in any event, the information was exempt from disclosure under the same exceptions as for the first request. The Commissioner concluded that most of the information requested was held by the public authority and therefore regulation 12(4) (a) was incorrectly applied. However he decided that this information was exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5) (b) as the information was covered by legal professional privilege. In addition, he found that the public authority had failed to comply with regulation 14(2), as it had not issued a refusal notice within 20 working days of receipt of the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 11(4) – Complaint not upheld, EIR 12(5)( b) – Complaint not upheld, EIR 12(4)(a) - Complaint upheld, EIR 14(2) - Complaint upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FS50078600
Case Ref: FS50086121
Date: 01/02/2007
Public Authority: Hertfordshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on private equity investments made by the council. 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). 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.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50086121
Case Ref: FS50090744
Date: 01/02/2007
Public Authority: Oxford City Council
Summary: The complainant requested details in relation to the sale of land at Minchery Farm (subsequently developed as the site for a football stadium and a cinema complex), bought from Oxford City Council by Firoka companies. The public authority refused to supply some of the information requested, citing section 41, information supplied in confidence, and section 43, commercial confidentiality. Following consideration of all relevant factors, the Information Commissioner’s decision is that the authority cannot rely on the exemptions and requires the authority to make the information available to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50090744