Case Ref: FS50085950
Date: 29/03/2007
Public Authority: Department for Work and Pensions
Summary: The complainant made Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to The Rent Service (TRS), an executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), asking for correspondence and minutes of meetings between the DWP and TRS relating to the determination of ‘localities’. Much of the information held by TRS in relation to the requests was withheld under section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) and section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the Act. Following intervention by the Commissioner, TRS supplied a number of previously withheld documents to the complainant but maintained that the remaining information was exempt from disclosure under the aforementioned sections. The Commissioner has decided that section 42(1) applies to all the remaining withheld information, with the balance of the public interest favouring the maintenance of that exemption. He therefore did not consider the application of section 35(1)(a).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50085950
Case Ref: FS50118870
Date: 29/03/2007
Public Authority: Colchester Borough Council
Summary: The complainant has been corresponding with the public authority since March 2004 regarding a newspaper article published previously, which reported that the Chief Executive had saved the public authority £3 million. As the Act came into force, the complainant made an information request to the public authority and requested a detailed breakdown of the savings. As this correspondence continued, the public authority provided a substantial amount of budgetary information. The complainant remained dissatisfied because he required the information about the reported savings in a similar format to a budget report he received from the public authority in March 2004. The public authority explained the difficulties in analysing the data and producing it in the manner the complainant described and stated that to do so would exceed the cost limit. The Commissioner’s investigation established that the information requested by the complainant was not held by the public authority. The Commissioner decided that, although considerable advice and assistance was provided, the public authority did not inform or make it clear to the complainant that it did not hold the information in the manner specified in the complainant’s request and therefore breached section 1 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50118870
Case Ref: FS50063318
Date: 29/03/2007
Public Authority: Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: A number of letters requesting information were sent by the complainant to Bury Metropolitan Council between January and April 2005. The request concerned material held about a dispute over a right of way claim, including legal advice relating to the claim, evidence considered as to its existence, ownership of a property and other internal information relating to this matter. In response, the council released some information, but chose to rely on a number of exemptions to withhold other documents. Sections 21, 36, 41, 42 and 43 were applied and in turn considered by the Commissioner. As a result of the Commissioner’s enquiries, the Decision Notice requires further information to be disclosed but does uphold the decision to withhold the majority of the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint upheld, FOI 21 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 - Complaint Partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FS50063318
Case Ref: FS50135471
Date: 29/03/2007
Public Authority: Brockhampton Group Parish Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the minutes of the Commons Management Committee (a committee of Brockhampton Group Parish Council), from September 2004. The Council refused to provide the requested information on the grounds that the request was vexatious and repeated. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council also alleged that to respond to the request would be too costly (when combined with other requests made by the complainant and other members of a User Group to which he belongs) and that the information was available by other means. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council has no lawful justification for refusing to provide the complainant with a copy of the minutes and therefore requires it to supply the complainant with the information requested.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 12 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 19 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 21 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50135471
Case Ref: FER0072936
Date: 28/03/2007
Public Authority: Milford Haven Port Authority
Summary: The complainant requested information, later narrowed down to two documents, about risk assessments carried out in relation to the development in Milford Haven of two Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminals. The Port Authority withheld the information by virtue of the exceptions at regulations 12(5)(b), (e) and (f). The Commissioner’s decision is that, in relation to the first document, none of the exceptions cited are engaged. In relation to the second document, the Commissioner has decided that the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged, but that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Port Authority applied the regulations inappropriately in seeking to withhold the information. The Port Authority also initially breached the requirements as set out in regulations 5(2) and 14(2). An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal but was later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5(2) – Complaint upheld, EIR 12(5)(b) – Complaint upheld, EIR 14(2) – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FER0072936
Case Ref: FS50153564
Date: 28/03/2007
Public Authority: Bexley Council
Summary: The complainant requested information held by the public authority (the “Council”) about his client’s applications for planning permission. In particular, the complainant asked for details of doubts raised about abandonment of the use of his client’s land, and about advice obtained and taken into account on that issue. The Council stated that it had provided all relevant information except for one letter to which it applied the exemption contained in section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). The complainant believes that the Council holds further relevant information which has been withheld from him. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council holds no recorded information which has not already been provided to the complainant and has therefore decided that the request has been dealt with in accordance with part 1 of the Act. The Commissioner has further decided that the withheld letter does not fall within the ambit of the information request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50153564
Case Ref: FS50134560
Date: 28/03/2007
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant wrote to the public authority requesting information related to issues of housing, social security benefits and legal aid. In response the Cabinet Office said that it was not obliged to comply with the request as it considered it to be a repeated request under section 14 of the Act. After investigating the complaint the Commissioner finds that the public authority has previously complied with substantially similar requests from the complainant and was therefore not obliged to comply with the most recent request. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2007/0114 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50134560
Case Ref: FS50126145
Date: 28/03/2007
Public Authority: Royal Mail
Summary: The complainant requested information from Royal Mail in relation to its Smart Stamp service. Royal Mail confirmed that the requested information was held but withheld it from disclosure under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (Prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner has concluded that Royal Mail correctly applied this exemption. He considers the exemption to be engaged in respect of all the requested information with the public interest favouring the maintenance of the exemption. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal but the Tribunal has ruled on this appeal and dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50126145
Case Ref: FER0091004
Date: 27/03/2007
Public Authority: Nottingham City Council
Summary: The complainant wrote to Nottingham City Council (the “Council”) on 11 February, 21 March and 23 October 2005 requesting information relating to the relocation of Blenheim Lane allotments to a new site. The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the Council’s responses to the complainant’s requests failed to comply with regulation 5 (time for compliance), regulation 14 (refusal to disclose) and regulation 7 in extending the time to respond to the requests on the basis of the complexity of its consideration of the public interest test under the Environmental Regulations 2004 (“EIR”). The Commissioner has decided that the Council correctly applied regulation 13 in refusing to provide to the complainant information about the individual compensation awarded to named allotment holders. The Commissioner has ordered the Council to respond to the outstanding aspects of the complainant’s requests for information dated 11 February, 21 March and 23 October 2005 by clearly confirming or denying what information it holds and providing information to which he is entitled or indicating the basis on which the information is exempt from disclosure in accordance with its obligations under regulation 14.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 - Complaint Upheld , EIR 7 - Complaint Upheld , EIR 13 - Complaint Not upheld , EIR 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FER0091004
Case Ref: FS50074348
Date: 27/03/2007
Public Authority: Department for Constitutional Affairs
Summary: The complainant requested information on the number and rank of judges and magistrates who had been disciplined for misuse of departmental computer systems, including those who had been found to use the internet to view pornography. The public authority initially admitted that it held the information but refused to provide it citing the exemption in section 36. In a later development, the public authority informed the complainant that it would ‘neither confirm nor deny’ that it held the information requested and applied the exemptions in sections 31 and 36 of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 17 of the Act, and that it has also incorrectly applied sections 31 and 36 of the Act. Consequently and in the particular circumstances of this complaint, the DCA should confirm whether or not it holds the information requested by the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 31 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 36 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50074348
Case Ref: FS50087290
Date: 27/03/2007
Public Authority: Export Credits Guarantee Department
Summary: The complainant said that the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) had refused its request for information about support given to BAE Systems (BAES), including a list of each of the BAES projects that ECGD supported, together with: the date the support was given; the type of insurance or guarantees given; the original amount; and, the then current exposure, if any. The Commissioner decided that, in refusing the request, ECGD had dealt with it in accordance with the requirements of the Act. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal but was later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50087290
Case Ref: FS50088733
Date: 27/03/2007
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a programme broadcast on Radio 4 in July 2005 called “The Moon Trees”. The BBC refused to provide a copy of the broadcast on the basis that it was not a public authority in relation to the complainant’s request because the information was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature within the meaning set out in Schedule 1 of the Act After a careful evaluation of the nature of the request, and the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is held for the purpose of journalism. Therefore the BBC has correctly relied upon the Schedule 1 derogation and is not obliged to supply the requested information. An Information Tribunal appeal has been withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50088733
Case Ref: FS50105262
Date: 27/03/2007
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant requested the amounts paid by the BBC to six insurers engaged by the BBC between 1995 to the present day. The BBC refused to disclose this information as the information requested was subject to section 43 of the Act – prejudice to commercial interests’. The Commissioner’s review of the application of section 43 found that the exemption was not engaged in respect of the information requested as the public authority had not demonstrated that disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the BBC or the insurers’ commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is to uphold the complaint and order the BBC to disclosure the requested information within 35 calendar days from date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50105262
Case Ref: FS50082220
Date: 27/03/2007
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: An information request was made for information concerning the assets of the BBC. The BBC refused this request on the grounds that to supply the information requested would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner finds that the cost limit was applied correctly and so finds no breach of the Act in this regard. However, the Commissioner also finds that the BBC failed to comply with the Act in that it did not respond to part of the information request and did not provide advice as to how to refine the request in order to bring it within the cost limit. These breaches have since been remedied and no further action on the part of the BBC is required. An appeal was made to the Tribunal who have ruled and allowed the appeal in part.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50082220
Case Ref: FS50080115
Date: 26/03/2007
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant requested a list of the recipients of Christmas Cards from the Prime Minister in the years 2003 and 2004. The Cabinet Office confirmed to the complainant that the only information it held in relation to the request was the Prime Minister’s working Christmas card list for 2004. Following an internal review the Cabinet Office refused to disclose the list to the complainant through the application of the following exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act: Section 27 (International relations), section 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), Section 38 (Health and safety) and Section 40 (Personal information). The Commissioner accepts that the only information held in relation to the request is the 2004 working list. He agrees that the majority of the list of names on the list should remain exempt for the reasons provided by the Cabinet Office. However, the Commissioner has also decided that the names of foreign leaders and heads of state on the list should be released, together with the names of headings used in the list and the number of recipients listed under each heading. This is because the Commissioner does not consider any exemption under the Act to apply to this information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 27 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 36 - Complaint Partially Upheld , FOI 38 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50080115
Case Ref: FS50086619
Date: 26/03/2007
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (‘FCO’) for any information that it held relating to the Rhodesian Army’s raid on Joshua Nkomo’s headquarters in Lusaka in April 1979. FCO provided the complainant with five documents relevant to his request but withheld others, citing section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). FCO considered that the balance of the public interest favoured withholding the information. The complainant sought an internal review of the decision, and asked FCO for the exact number of documents that had been withheld. FCO maintained the decision to withhold the information sought, saying that it was unable to provide detailed reasons without revealing the contents of documents (in effect a section 17(4) argument). FCO also declined to disclose the number of relevant documents, but agreed to do so following the Commissioner’s intervention. Having viewed the information, the Commissioner accepted that some of the information had been correctly withheld under section 27, but considered that some of it could be released. He criticised FCO for its failure specifically to cite section 17(4).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 27 - Complaint Partially Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50086619
Case Ref: FS50109149
Date: 26/03/2007
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant asked for information contained in communications between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (the “FCO”) and the Foreign Press Association (the ”FPA”) and information relating to the suspension of financial support for the FPA. The FCO delayed in replying to this request for around a year and then said that it held no relevant information. Following further discussion the FCO established that it did hold a small amount of information and agreed to release some of it to the FPA: other information was withheld under section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner found the FCO to be in breach of sections 1, 10 and 17 of the Freedom of Information Act (the”Act”), for which it was strongly criticised. The Commissioner upheld the FCO’s decision to withhold the remaining information under section 35(1)(a). An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 35 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50109149
Case Ref: FS50112855
Date: 26/03/2007
Public Authority: Ofcom
Summary: The complainant contacted the Commissioner following the failure of Ofcom to provide any of the information requested. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, Ofcom provided some of the information requested and refused the rest under section 12. The Commissioner finds that section 12 has been applied correctly but that Ofcom failed to comply with sections 1 and 17 in its initial response. These breaches have since been remedied and no further action is required
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 16 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50112855
Case Ref: FS50122060
Date: 26/03/2007
Public Authority: The National Audit Office
Summary: The complainant requested information regarding the source of figures found within a report produced by the public authority entitled “Modernising Construction 2000 – 2001”. In response the public authority provided the complainant with a copy of a spreadsheet which it said was the source of these figures. The complainant did not accept that this spreadsheet was the true source of the figures. On considering the complaint the Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority disclosed all of the information it held that fell within the scope of the complainant’s request. Consequently the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50122060
Case Ref: FS50126668
Date: 26/03/2007
Public Authority: Information Commissioner
Summary: The complainant requested copies of all documentation sent by an individual in relation to a complaint made about the complainant to the Information Commissioner under the terms of the Data Protection Act (the “DPA”). The complainant further requested an explanation regarding payments made by the Commissioner to individuals relating to the same DPA complaint. The Commissioner refused the first part of the request on the basis that section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act applied as section 59 of the DPA provided statutory prohibition on disclosure. The complainant received an answer to the second part of the request. This Decision Notice does not uphold the complaint made and concludes that the exemption has been applied correctly.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50126668
Case Ref: FS50133903
Date: 26/03/2007
Public Authority: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Summary: The complainant requested documentation held by HMRC to support its interpretation of a particular piece of legislation. HMRC responded to confirm it held information but that it was exempt from disclosure as the documentation was legal advice and so section 42 of the Act, ‘legal professional privilege’, was engaged. HMRC also argued that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner investigated HMRC’s application of section 42 and found that the information requested is legal advice and is therefore covered by the exemption and that the public interest does favour maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC dealt with the request in accordance with the Act and require no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50133903
Case Ref: FS50152478
Date: 26/03/2007
Public Authority: Audit Commission
Summary: The complainant made four requests for information about an audit carried out in 1990/1991 by the Audit Commission on Wakefield Metropolitan District Council. The Audit Commission initially stated that it did not hold information in response to three of these requests, but following a further search located information in response to two of the requests and has now provided this information to the complainant. The Audit Commission further stated that it could not respond to the fourth request, as doing so would exceed the appropriate limit, which the Commissioner decided it was entitled to do.
An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50152478
Case Ref: FS50086298
Date: 19/03/2007
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant made a number of information requests to the public authority during a short period of time. The public authority refused these requests as they were considered vexatious. The Commissioner finds that the requests have the effect of harassing the public authority and that they can be fairly characterised as obsessive. The Commissioner upholds the refusal of these requests as vexatious and does not require the public authority to take any further action. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50086298
Case Ref: FS50121212
Date: 15/03/2007
Public Authority: Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to alleged surveillance of him by the public authority. The public authority will neither confirm nor deny the existence of such information as if it were to exist; it would be subject to the exemption at section 31 relating to law enforcement. Following consideration of the public interest, the Commissioner upholds the public authority’s decision
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 31 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50121212
Case Ref: FS50132849
Date: 15/03/2007
Public Authority: District of Easington Council
Summary: The complainant made a request to the public authority for a copy of a building survey commissioned by Thornley Community Centre Committee on Thornley Community Centre. The public authority withheld the survey citing section 41(1) of the Act; information provided in confidence. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority correctly withheld the building survey information but a coal mining report that was attached to the survey should be released under the Regulations. The Commissioner partly upholds the public authority’s decision and partly upholds the complaint.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld, EIR 5(1) – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FS50132849
Case Ref: FS50151402
Date: 14/03/2007
Public Authority: Camelford Town Council
Summary: The complainant requested the public authority allow it to view option forms that had been completed and returned by members of the public expressing a preference for the future charging method to be employed at a local car park. The public authority failed to recognise the request as one properly made under the Freedom of Information Act. It thereafter dealt with a further similar request from the complainant by again refusing it, but this time relying upon an exemption under section 41 of the Act indicating that the information had been provided in confidence. Following an investigation, the Commissioner considers that the public authority did not properly respond to the initial request. It failed to release in accordance with section 1 of the Act that part of the requested information in respect of the disclosure of which it had no objection. As regards its refusal to release the part to which it did object it failed to issue the required notice under section 17 of the Act. Further, the Commissioner considers that in response to the subsequent request, the public authority (incorrectly referring to an exemption under section 41 of the Act) failed to inform the complainant at that time that the information no longer existed in its entirety and was therefore not held. In doing so the public authority again breached section 1 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FS50151402
Case Ref: FS50078522
Date: 14/03/2007
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant requested information about appointments made to the public authority’s South West Regional Advisory Council. The public authority withheld information about the ethnic origin of members of the council and about how the decision to appoint to the Council was made. The complainant also believed that information had been withheld about the criteria used when making appointments to this Council. The Commissioner finds that information about the ethnic origin of Council members and notes about each applicant made during the appointment process has been withheld correctly under section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed in its duty to confirm or deny the existence of all information held by it that falls within the scope of the request. As remedial steps have since been taken, the public authority is not required to take further action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50078522
Case Ref: FS50109184
Date: 14/03/2007
Public Authority: Bretforton Parish Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a cemetery plan which was refused by the Council under section 14 of the FOIA on the basis that it had already communicated the information and the request was therefore vexatious. The Commissioner considered the exclusions under section 14 (1) and section 14 (2) but was not satisfied that these exclusions applied. The Council subsequently applied section 40 (2) because it considered that information in the plan relating to living people who have purchased cemetery plots is third party personal data. The Commissioner agreed that this information is exempt but the Council are required to release a copy of the redacted plan to the complainant within 35 days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50109184
Case Ref: FS50114582
Date: 14/03/2007
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant requested access to the transcripts, editorial or presenter interview notes and all other documents that were used in preparation for a BBC interview that was broadcast on 19 January 2006. The BBC refused to disclose the requested information on the basis that it was not a public authority in relation to the complainant’s request because the information was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature within the derogation set out in Schedule 1 of the Act (“Schedule 1”). After a careful evaluation of the nature of the request, the submissions of the parties, and the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly relied upon the Schedule 1 derogation. Therefore by virtue of section 7(1) of the Act, the requested information is excluded from Parts I to V of the Act. The Commissioner also finds that the BBC as a public authority did not breach section 10 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50114582
Case Ref: FS50086626
Date: 13/03/2007
Public Authority: Gloucestershire County Council
Summary: The complainant made a request for a copy of a petition which was submitted by a councillor in relation to his tenancy. In response to the request, the Council released some information under the Data Protection Act 1998. This was limited to the heading “Undesirable Tenant” followed by the complainant’s address at the time. The Council stated that the names, addresses and signatures of those who signed the petition were exempt from release under section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner has investigated and is satisfied that the exemption has been correctly applied.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50086626
Case Ref: FS50125496
Date: 13/03/2007
Public Authority: Department for Work and Pensions
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning an incident where personal data relating to the complainant had been disclosed by the public authority in error. The public authority refused this request on the grounds that it was vexatious. The Commissioner finds that the request was correctly refused as vexatious. The Commissioner also finds that the request was not responded to within the time limit of 20 working days. This breach does not necessitate remedial action. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal but the Tribunal has ruled on this appeal and dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FS50125496
Case Ref: FS50130128
Date: 13/03/2007
Public Authority: Crown Prosecution Service
Summary: The complainants made a request for information relating to alleged offences committed by members of the public on a footpath which bisects the complainants’ land. The CPS responded by providing some material, but not the instructions given to Counsel or Counsel’s advice, citing the legal professional privilege exemption contained in section 42 as the reason for refusing this aspect of the request. The complainants submitted that release of the advice and instructions was in the public interest. The Commissioner’s decision is that the use of the section 42 exemption is upheld in this matter, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption in this instance. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50130128
Case Ref: FS50098499
Date: 13/03/2007
Public Authority: Cambridgeshire County Council
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to a long-running planning dispute. The public authority explained that the complainant had been given unrestricted access to the records it held about his complaint and he had been provided with copies of all eligible information. The complainant was not satisfied with the information that had been disclosed as it did not contain notes of the reasons for the conclusions reached by the public authority in respect of his complaint. Having considered the information available the Commissioner is satisfied that the outstanding information specifically requested by the complainant is not held by the public authority as recorded information. 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 FS50098499
Case Ref: FS50095636
Date: 12/03/2007
Public Authority: Department of Health
Summary: The complainant requested information in relation to the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999. The Commissioner is satisfied that, under section 12 of the Act, the public authority was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the information, as to do so would in itself exceed the appropriate limit. The public authority informed the complainant within 20 working days of the request that it was relying on section 12 of the Act, and the Commissioner is therefore satisfied that the public authority has complied with section 17 of the Act. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the public authority provided further advice and assistance to the complainant and the Commissioner now considers that the public authority has complied with section 16 of the Act. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 16 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50095636
Case Ref: FS50114875
Date: 12/03/2007
Public Authority: Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service
Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority in relation to a review carried out on fire stations in Hertfordshire. The public authority disclosed the information, but failed to provide some of the information within the required 20 working days
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Partially Upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50114875
Case Ref: FS50072189
Date: 08/03/2007
Public Authority: Treasury Solicitors (TSOL)
Summary: The complainant submitted an FOI request to the Attorney General, asking for correspondence, papers and files which led to the Attorney General making an application to the Employment Appeals Tribunal to have him declared a vexatious litigant. The Treasury Solicitor’s Department (TSol) (acting for the Attorney General) refused to supply this information on the basis that the information is exempt under section 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) and section 31 (law enforcement) of the Act. The Commissioner decided that TSol should instead have applied section 40(1) (personal information) because the information requested constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject. The Commissioner has nevertheless also addressed the exemptions used by TSol and has further decided that section 30 does not apply but section 31 is engaged with public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighing that in disclosure of the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 31 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50072189
Case Ref: FS50132229
Date: 06/03/2007
Public Authority: Chester City Council
Summary: The complainant requested information about Chester City Council’s contact with West Cheshire College over the disposal of a piece of land. He was particularly interested in obtaining the minutes of a meeting held by West Cheshire College, at which Council representatives were present, and a letter from the Council to the College relating to that meeting. The Council supplied some information in response to the request but denied holding a record of the meeting or a copy of the letter. The complainant appealed and as a result of the internal review carried out by the Council he eventually received a copy of the letter and a single page which the Council claimed was its sole record of the meeting, obtained from West Cheshire College in the course of dealing with his appeal. The complainant continued to maintain that the Council must hold a more detailed report on the meeting. Having considered the correspondence supplied by the complainant and questioned the Council on the purpose of the meeting and the nature of the Council’s involvement in it, the Information Commissioner is satisfied that the Council does not hold the information requested by the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 16 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50132229
Case Ref: FS50075365
Date: 05/03/2007
Public Authority: St Albans City and District Council
Summary: The complainants had requested all documents and records held regarding planning applications submitted by a neighbour, their subsequent complaints in respect of how the planning applications were processed, and complaint to the local government ombudsman. The Council provided some of the information requested, withholding the remainder under sections 40 and 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). Following the intervention of the Commissioner the Council agreed to release additional information to the complainants, however, it insisted on withholding six documents citing the exemptions mentioned. The Commissioner is satisfied that the exemptions have been applied appropriately therefore; the Council are not required to take any further action. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50075365
Case Ref: FS50144942
Date: 05/03/2007
Public Authority: Northern Ireland Office
Summary: The complainant made three requests by email to the Northern Ireland Office (the NIO) on 14, 15 and 22 August 2006. He received no response, and contacted the NIO again on 11 October 2006. The NIO acknowledged the complainant’s email of 11 October 2006 and advised that it would respond to his requests. The NIO provided the complainant with the information he requested in relation to two of the three requests on 30 October 2006 and 10 January 2007, but failed to provide the complainant either with the information he requested, or a refusal notice, in relation to the other request. The Commissioner therefore requires the NIO to provide a response to the complainant in relation to the outstanding request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50144942