May 2007

Case Ref: FS50121840
Date: 31/05/2007
Public Authority: Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland
Summary: The complainant made a request to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland (“PPS(NI)”) on 23 November 2005 for a copy of the Chief Inspector’s report and all supporting documentation submitted by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) to the PPS(NI) in relation to his official complaint against several police officers (“the requested information”).  The PPS(NI) withheld the requested information relying on exemptions under sections 30(1)(a)(i), 30(1)(b), 30(1)(c), 30(2)(a)(i), 30(2)(a)(ii)  (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities), 40 (2) and 40(3) (personal data relating to third parties) of the Act. The complainant appealed to the Information Commissioner (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has not upheld the complaint as he is satisfied that the exemptions were applied correctly to the requested information and that, in this particular case, the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.  However, the Commissioner also finds that the PPS(NI) is in breach of sections 17(1)(c) and 17(3)(b)  of the Act as it has failed to provide an adequate refusal notice in accordance with the terms of the Act. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50121840

Case Ref: FS50082246
Date: 30/05/2007
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning loans made between subsidiaries of the public authority. In response to this, the public authority stated that its subsidiaries are not covered by the Act. The Commissioner finds that wholly owned subsidiaries of the public authority are not subject to the Act and, therefore, information held by these subsidiaries cannot be accessed via the Act. The Commissioner also finds that recorded information falling within the scope of the request is not held by the public authority.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 6 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50082246

Case Ref: FS50078583
Date: 23/05/2007
Public Authority: Commission for Local Administration in England
Summary: The complainant made a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) about his County Council. He was unhappy with the LGO’s handling and made an internal service complaint against the LGO’s investigator. He also submitted three successive requests for information about the LGO’s complaints-handling statistics; the LGO’s investigator and his handling of the complainant’s case; and information from the internal service complaint. The LGO stated that it did not hold some of the information, provided other parts of it, and withheld the rest citing sections 36 and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’) in respect of some, and section 44(1)(a) for the rest. The Commissioner decided that section 40 did apply and that it was therefore not necessary for him to consider the LGO’s application of section 36. In relation to the rest of the information, to which section 44 had been applied, the Commissioner decided that some of this had been improperly withheld under section 44 and should now be disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50078583

Case Ref: FS50117249
Date: 23/05/2007
Public Authority: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Summary:The Complainant requested all internal documents from the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) relating to the purchase of art works by an individual and the National Council for Art Culture and Heritage (NCAH) in Qatar. The Complainant also requested communications between DCMS and any outside bodies regarding the purchases. DCMS disclosed all the communications it held with outside bodies but refused to disclose internal documents relating to the individual or the NCAH under sections 40, 41 and 44 and on the grounds of cost. During the course of the investigation the Commissioner established that the cost limit was being applied to all the information being withheld and so focused his investigation on this. The Commissioner’s decision is that to obtain and disclose the information in the remainder of the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding:FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50117249

Case Ref: FS50112248
Date: 23/05/2007
Public Authority: Ministry of Defense
Summary:The complainant requested information held by the Ministry of Defence about legal advice obtained in relation to its duties and responsibilities, in particular to Royal Ordnance Factory pensioners, following two decisions by the European Court of Justice. The public authority confirmed that it held certain information but was withholding 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 has considered the legal advice in question and is satisfied that, while it is not the information that the complainant had been expecting to be held, it is information relating closely to it and that the public authority has applied section 42 correctly to it. 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 FS50112248

Case Ref: FS50094124
Date: 22/05/2007
Public Authority: Local Government Ombudsman
Summary:The complainant made a request to the Local Government Ombudsman for information related to its investigation of a complaint he had previously made against Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council. The public authority refused to disclose the information under section 44 of the Act which provides an exemption from the right to know where disclosure is prohibited under any other enactment. It explained that the relevant statutory prohibition is section 32(2) of the Local Government Act 1974. On reviewing the complaint the Commissioner has found that the majority of the information is exempt from disclosure although the Commissioner has found that some of the information should have been disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner has also found that some of the information requested by the complainant is environmental information and that therefore the public authority should have also considered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. However, the Information Commissioner has found that any environmental information held by the public authority would fall within the exception in regulation 12(5)(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations and that the public interest in maintaining this exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the environmental information. 
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 14 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50094124

Case Ref: FS50085945
Date: 22/05/2007
Public Authority: Department for Education and Skills
Summary:The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has partially failed to comply with its obligations under section 1(1) of the Freedom of InformationAct 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner requires DfES to disclose the information previously withheld under section 35 of the Act but decided it had acted correctly in withholding information under section 42. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal. 
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50085945

Case Ref: FS50136587
Date: 22/05/2007
Public Authority: Merseytravel
Summary:The complainant requested information about a specific loan. The public authority declined relying upon the sections 36 and 42 exemptions and in maintaining that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority has applied the section 42 exemption and the public interest test correctly. 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 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50136587

Case Ref: FS50081525
Date: 22/05/2007
Public Authority: Her Majesty’s Treasury
Summary:The complainant requested copies of copies of any legal opinions and other communications held by Her Majesty’s Treasury regarding the compatibility of the Financial Services and Markets Bill with the Human Rights Act. The request was initially refused under sections 35(1)(b) (ministerial communications), 35(3) (refusal to confirm or deny the holding of Law Officers’ advice) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The public authority subsequently sought to rely, in addition, on sections 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) and 41 (information provided in confidence). Following discussions with the complainant, the Commissioner was able to narrow the scope of his investigation to a consideration of the application of sections 35(3) and 42(1). The Commissioner has concluded that section 35(3) was not applicable and that the public authority should disclose to the complainant whether it holds Law Officers’ advice in relation to the subject matter of the complainant’s request. In relation to section 42(1), the Commissioner has decided that this exemption was correctly applied. In addition, he has determined that the public authority breached section 17(1), as it failed to state in its refusal notice that sections 35(1)(a) and 41 were applicable to some of the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2007/0054 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50081525

Case Ref: FS50129516
Date: 21/05/2007
Public Authority: Commission for Local Administration in England
Summary:The complainant made a request to the Local Government Ombudsman for information related to its investigation of a complaint he had previously made against the London Borough of Barnet. The public authority refused to disclose the information, relying upon section 44 of the Act which provides an exemption from the right to know where disclosure is prohibited under any other enactment. It explained that the relevant statutory prohibition is section 32(2) of the Local Government Act 1974. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and has found that the majority of the information was exempt from disclosure. However the Commissioner has found that the public authority breached section 1 of the Act because section 32(2) of the Local Government Act did not apply to all of the information it held.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding:FOI 44 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50129516

Case Ref: FS50117045
Date: 21/05/2007
Public Authority: Cheltenham Borough Council
Summary:The complainant requested the Council to release a copy of the submissions it made to Counsel regarding an ASBO application he requested to be ordered against his neighbour. The Council responded and refused to disclose the information, citing section 42 of the Act. The complainant remained dissatisfied and submitted that the release of this information was of great importance to him, as he wished to see what evidence was taken into account when his ASBO application was considered. The Commissioner considered the case and concluded that the exemption provided by section 42 of the Act was appropriately applied in this case and that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50117045

Case Ref: FS50107458
Date: 21/05/2007
Public Authority: National Gallery
Summary:The complainant requested correspondence between the owner of the painting and the National Gallery relating to a specific painting. The Gallery disclosed some information relating to correspondence between the Gallery and Heritage Lottery fund but withheld the remainder of the information under section 43. The Commissioner investigated the application of section 43 and finds that the exemption is engaged and that in all circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by the public authority.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50107458

Case Ref: FER0082261
Date: 21/05/2007
Public Authority: Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland
Summary:The complainant on 1 January 2005made a request to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland(the Department) for a copy of a planning enforcement file relating to his planning application. The Department allowed the complainant to view the file but withheld some information contained in the file. In responding to his request, the Department subsequently applied the exemptions under sections 40, 42 and 30 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to parts of the file, some of which he had already viewed. Following correspondence with the Information Commissioner, the Department dealt with the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), relying on regulations 12(5)(b) and 13(1) to withhold the information sought. As a result of the intervention of the Commissioner, the Department undertook to disclose a redacted copy of correspondence with its in-house solicitors to the complainant and withheld the remaining information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the remaining redactions contained in the legal correspondence are exempt by virtue of regulation 12(5) (b) of the EIR The Commissioner is satisfied that to disclose the outstanding third party personal information contained in the enforcement file would be unfair to the individuals involved and is therefore exempt under Regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner is of the view that in relation to that correspondence between the Department and its external legal advisors exception 12 (5) (b) is not engaged and in any event the privilege in this information has been waived due to the complainant being privy to its content. The Commissioner orders the Department to release that information to the complainant. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(5)(b) - Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 - Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0082261

Case Ref: FS50094281

Date: 17/05/2007
Public Authority: Bath and North East Somerset Council
Summary: The complainant requested access to information held by the Assistant Director of Environmental Services at the Council, regarding the Former Fuller Earthworks Site. Although the Council disclosed the information it held, the complainant remained dissatisfied with how the information had been presented and felt for this reason that the Council had not complied with the Act. The complainant requested the Council to resend the information but in a different format. As correspondence continued the Council agreed to reconsider the way the information was supplied and the possibility of resending the information in the manner the complainant required. The Council concluded that it was unwilling to comply with the complainant’s wishes as it would simply be resending the same information to that already provided. The Council informed the complainant that it had already supplied the information held and had therefore met its obligations under the Act. The Commissioner was asked to consider the case and he concluded that the Council had supplied the information it held and had therefore dealt with the complainant’s information request in accordance with section 1 of the Act. In respect of the way the information was communicated to the complainant, the Commissioner concluded that section 11 of the Act could not be applied in this case, as the complainant made no specific request to receive the information in a particular format at the time of making his initial request to the Council.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 11 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50094281

Case Ref: FS50140862
Date: 17/05/2007
Public Authority: Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Summary: The complainant wrote to the public authority to request copies of transcripts of two interviews it had conducted in the course of investigating a complaint against the West Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust. The public authority refused to disclose the information under section 44 of the Act. The public authority said that the relevant statutory prohibition was section 15(1) of the Health Service Commissioner’s Act 1993. The Information Commissioner has investigated the complaint and is satisfied that section 44 of the Act was correctly applied. However, the Information Commissioner has found that the public authority breached section 17 of the Act by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days of receiving the request. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50140862

Case Ref: FS50074995
Date: 16/05/2007
Public Authority: Calderdale Council
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning the grounds and financial arrangements for the early retirement of a senior member of staff of the public authority. The public authority refused this request under section 40(2). The Commissioner finds that disclosure of personal data relating to the former employee of the public authority would breach the first data protection principle and, therefore, that section 40(2) has been applied correctly.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50074995

Case Ref: FS50126388
Date: 16/05/2007
Public Authority: Ealing London Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the adoption of executive arrangements under the Local Government Act 2000 (LGA). She specifically requested certain details about the publicity in local newspapers and whether a formal resolution was passed under section 29 of the LGA. The public authority advised that it no longer holds the details of the publicity and that it was considering whether it held information concerning whether a formal resolution was passed under section 29 (3) of the LGA. Although the complainant provided clarification that she required information about a formal resolution under section 29 (1) of the LGA, following internal review, the public authority advised that it had been unable to identify any information concerning whether a formal resolution was passed under section 29 (3) of the LGA. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the public authority confirmed that it had passed a formal resolution under section 29 (1) of the LGA and supplied a copy of the relevant minutes. The Commissioner therefore considers that the public authority breached section 1 of the FOIA. He found no evidence to suggest that the requested details of the publicity are still held by the public authority and does not find any breach of section 1 of the FOIA in this regard.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Partially Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50126388

Case Ref: FS50101614
Date: 15/05/2007
Public Authority: Charity Commission
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for all recorded information held about a charity he managed. The public authority provided some information initially and at the internal review stage, but withheld other information under sections 31, 40 and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). After the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority released further information but continued to withhold details of the identity of a person who had made a complaint about the charity. The Commissioner decided that the public authority was justified in applying section 31 to this information, and that it was not therefore necessary to go on to assess the remaining exemptions cited by the public authority. However, he also decided that there was a breach of section 10(1) of the Act in that the Commission did not respond to the complainant’s request within twenty working days and section 17(7) as the refusal notice was not adequate. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 31 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50101614

Case Ref: FS50123921
Date: 15/05/2007
Public Authority: City of York Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from City of York Council (the Council) relating to the early retirement of the Director of Commercial Services. The Council withheld this information on the grounds that section 40(2) of the Act applied; in that the information requested constituted the Director’s personal data and to release it would be unfair to him. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council was correct to apply the exemption in this case; he does not therefore require the Council to take any further steps in respect of this request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50123921

Case Ref: FS50145067
Date: 15/05/2007
Public Authority: Surrey Heath Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of two letters from the public authority. The public authority informed the complainant that one of the letters was not held but did not inform the complainant that the second letter was not held. The Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority does not hold the two letters and does not therefore see value in requiring the public authority to inform the complainant that the second letter is not held.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Partially Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50145067

Case Ref: FS50081798
Date: 14/05/2007
Public Authority: Gwent Police Authority
Summary: The complainant requested from Gwent Police Authority a copy of a report written by West Mercia police into allegations made against serving police officers in the Gwent police force. As the report contained information about the complainant, the request was made under both the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts. A copy was provided to the complainant by the Police Authority, with some information redacted by virtue of section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. The basis of the complaint was that the information should not have been redacted. However, the Commissioner decided that the Police Authority applied the Act appropriately in redacting the personal data of others.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50081798

Case Ref: FS50086498
Date: 14/05/2007
Public Authority: Her Majestys Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to complaints made against two named individual officers of the public authority. The public authority refused to confirm or deny that any information of the description requested was in fact held by the authority, citing the exemption at section 40 of the Act. This section allows information to be withheld if it constitutes personal data and to confirm or deny its existence would breach any of the data protection principles. The Commissioner has decided in this case that the public authority applied the Act correctly in citing the section 40 exemption and therefore requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50086498

Case Ref: FER0152661
Date: 03/05/2007
Public Authority: South Gloucestershire Council
Summary: The complainant submitted two requests for information in relation to a planning application. The public authority provided some information in response and further information following the Commissioner’s intervention. The Commissioner is now satisfied that the public authority has provided all the information it held. However, the public authority did not confirm or deny whether it held the information in relation to one element of one request within the 20 working days permitted. In addition, the public authority did not provide the information in relation to the other request within the 20 working days permitted.   
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint not upheld, EIR 5(1) – Complaint not upheld, EIR 5(2) - Complaint upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0152661

Case Ref: FS50072316
Date: 03/05/2007
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to a draft of the Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction dossier from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (the “FCO”).  The FCO refused the request citing the exemption under section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) in that disclosure of the information would prejudice the ability of officials to freely and frankly exchange views for the purposes of deliberation.  After reviewing the information and considering the relevant arguments, the Commissioner decided the FCO were wrong to rely on the exemption under section 36 of the Act and also that it failed to provide a response to the request within the 20 working days permitted by the Act.  In view of this, the Commissioner requires the FCO to disclose the requested information to the complainant. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50072316