Case Ref: FS50091442
Date: 28/06/2007
Public Authority: Scotland Office
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Scotland Office relating to the Scottish Adjacent Water Boundaries Order. The Scotland Office withheld the information it held in relation to the request by applying the following exemptions, Section 35(1)(a) – Formulation or development of government policy, Section 35(1)(b) – Ministerial communications and Section 42(1) – Legal professional privilege. The Commissioner agrees that these exemptions are engaged in relation to the information but considers the public interest to favour the disclosure of the following information which had been withheld under section 35, Submissions/advice to Ministers and Correspondence between Ministers. The Commissioner has also decided that the Refusal Notice issued to the complainant did not conform to the requirements of section 17 of the Act. Please note that this decision notice was originally served on the Ministry of Justice rather than the Scotland Office due to an administrative error. The summary has been amended to reflect this. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 35 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50091442
Case Ref: FS50102203
Date: 25/06/2007
Public Authority: Western Cheshire NHS Primary Care Trust
Summary: The complainant made two sets of requests to the Cheshire West NHS Primary Care Trust (the “PCT”) for a number of pieces of information relating to a doctor who had been investigated by the PCT in connection to allegations of criminal offences. By the time of the second set of requests the doctor had appeared in court. These events were related to two ‘protected disclosures’ which the complainant had made to the PCT. The PCT withheld all of the information it held which fell under these requests under section 40(2). The PCT also claimed section 30, section 31 and section 42 for some of the information in question. After considering the case the Commissioner upheld the PCT’s decision to withhold the information under section 40(2). Therefore he did not go on to consider the application of the other exemptions. The Commissioner did, however, find that the PCT had not complied with some of the procedural requirements of the Act, namely section 10 and section 17. The Western Cheshire NHS Primary Care Trust has since taken over responsibilities for this Trust, and therefore this Notice is addressed to it.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50102203
Case Ref: FS50148605
Date: 25/06/2007
Public Authority: South Norfolk District Council
Summary: The complainants have been in dispute with the Council for some time in respect of a variety of issues. As a result of a judicial review brought against the Council by the complainants, the Council was awarded costs by the court by virtue of a court order dated 16 March 2006. The complainants submitted an information request to the Council for a detailed breakdown or invoice of the costs awarded. The Council responded and informed the complainants that it does not hold the information specified in their request. As the complainants remained dissatisfied, they raised a complaint with the Commissioner. The Commissioner considered the case and concluded that the Council does not hold the information the complainants requested. It was established that the Council does hold a copy of the “summary assessment” submitted to court and information relating to the time spent by its legal adviser on the judicial review. This information has now been communicated to the complainants. The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that the Council dealt with the complainants request in accordance with section 1 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50148605
Case Ref: FS50086866
Date: 25/06/2007
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice (formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs)
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the Report that was produced following the disciplinary hearing of a named Magistrate. The request was refused and section 40 and 36 exemptions cited as reasons for non-disclosure. The DCA did not comply with sections 10 and 17 of the Act in this respect as the refusal notice was provided outside of the requisite 20 working days and did not cite exemptions that the DCA eventually wished to rely upon in addition to the above (sections 31 and 41). The Commissioner has decided however, that although the details of it were cited late in the course of the matter, the DCA’s application of the exemption at section 40(2) of the Act was correct and the complaint is therefore not upheld in that respect. The request for information was made to the DCA in March 2005. The DCA has now ceased to exist and its functions have transferred to the Ministry of Justice (“MOJ”). Therefore this decision notice has been served on the MOJ, the public authority listed above.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50086866
Case Ref: FS50089779
Date: 25/06/2007
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence
Summary: The complainant, an employee of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), sought information from MOD relating to an Assessment and Development Centre he had attended to help determine suitability for promotion. Although a substantial amount of information was released to the complainant, MOD withheld some information under section 36 of the Act on the grounds that release of it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner took the view that the opinion of the qualified person that the information should be withheld was a reasonable one and that the public interest operated in favour of the maintenance of the exemption. He did, however, criticise MOD for some aspects of its handling of the request. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50089779
Case Ref: FER0086093
Date: 25/06/2007
Public Authority: Department for Communities and Local Government
Summary: The complainant asked DCLG for all of the background papers relating to the decision to call in a planning application for determination by the Secretary of State. DCLG provided some information but withheld internal emails and a minute, draft call-in letters, a draft Ministerial submission, the final submission and an internal case referral proforma, citing the exception in regulation 12(4)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. DCLG subsequently agreed to release the draft call-in letters, and the factual elements of both the draft submission and the final submission. The Commissioner upheld DCLG’s decision in relation to the internal emails and minute, but found that, in this case, the public interest in maintaining the exception did not outweigh the public interest in disclosing all of the information contained in the draft submission, final submission and proforma, although he agreed that the names of junior officials could be redacted. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(4)(E) - Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0086093
Case Ref: FS50144286
Date: 25/06/2007
Public Authority: Brockhampton Group Parish Council
Summary: The complainant requested four items of information from Brockhampton Group Parish Council (the “Council”) relating to an area of common land called Bromyard Downs. The Council refused to provide this information however did not state, under the terms of the Act, its justification for doing so. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council alleged that some of the information requested was not held by the Council for the purposes of the Act, that the requests were vexatious and repeated, that to respond to them would be too costly (when combined with other requests made by the complainant and other members of a User Group to which he belongs), that some of the information was “confidential” and that some of the information was available to the complainant by other means. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council was not required to provide information to the complainant in relation to three of the requests, however must provide some information in relation to one of the requests.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 3 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50144286
Case Ref: FER0131423
Date: 21/06/2007
Public Authority: Bath & North East Somerset Council
Summary: The complainant asked Bath & North East Somerset Council for a copy of legal advice supplied to it by its legal adviser, in connection with sewage and drainage issues relating to the Combe Down Stone Mines Project. The request was declined by the Council on the basis that the information was subject to Legal Professional Privilege and was therefore excepted under the EIR regulation 12(5)(b). After requesting a copy of the withheld information and further information about the refusal, the Information Commissioner concluded the claim that the information was subject to legal professional privilege was applicable and the information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of Regulation 12(5)(b).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(5)(b) – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0131423
Case Ref: FS50117954
Date: 19/06/2007
Public Authority: Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the surfaces of lanes throughout the local authority area and information relating to the operation of the Land Drainage Act. In terms of the former, the public authority responded by stating that some of the information requested is not held by the authority, and that to provide the information that is held would exceed the appropriate limit. Following his investigation, the Commissioner has decided that the information requested is not held by the public authority. In terms of the information relating to the operation of the Land Drainage Act, the only information held by the public authority is a copy of that Act, and the request was refused by virtue of the exemption at section 21 of the FOI Act, because copies of Acts of Parliament are accessible to the applicant either on the internet or via Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. The Commissioner has decided that this is a request for environmental information and the public authority should therefore have dealt with the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. As there is no equivalent of section 21 of the Act in the regulations, the Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the information it holds in relation to the second request. 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 1 - Complaint upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50117954
Case Ref: FS50089844
Date: 19/06/2007
Public Authority: Health and Safety Executive
Summary: The complainant asked HSE for a full and factual report of a fatal accident at the premises of Leyland Trucks. HSE provided some information, redacted to remove personal information under section 40, but withheld the analysis section of the report of its Inspector’s investigation under section 30 and certain other information provided by the company under section 41. It also cited those exemptions as grounds for withholding witness statements. The complainant subsequently asked HSE for a copy of the company’s internal report of the accident, but HSE said that it did not hold one. The Commissioner held that HSE had correctly applied sections 30, 40 and 41 to the withheld information, and accepted that HSE did not hold the company’s report and were thus not required to release it.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50089844
Case Ref: FS50141902
Date: 19/06/2007
Public Authority: Civil Aviation Authority
Summary: Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “FOIA”) the complainant requested copies of Airprox, or similar, reports in relation to three incidents involving aircraft. By way of background, the public authority defines an Airprox incident as a situation when, in the opinion of a pilot or a controller, the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed was such that the safety of the aircraft involved was or may have been compromised. The public authority provided some summary information on two of the incidents, and informed the complainant that it did not hold any information in relation to the third incident. The public authority refused to provide copies of the actual reports, citing section 44 of the FOIA, and stating that section 23 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 provided a statutory bar to disclosure. After considering the case the Commissioner upheld the decision of the public authority to withhold the information in question under section 44. Therefore the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps in relation to the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50141902
Case Ref: FS50103648
Date: 14/06/2007
Public Authority: Southport & Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested information about the Local Awards Committee, in relation to an application he had made for a Clinical Excellence Award. By way of background, the Local Awards Committee assesses applications for these awards, and the members of the Committee score each of the candidates. The complainant specifically requested the identities of the Committee members in relation to the specific scores he had been awarded. The public authority provided a breakdown of the scores he had received. However it refused to identify which members had awarded which score, and cited the exemption at section 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, stating that the disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The public authority then went on to state that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. After considering the case the Commissioner decided that the requested information was exempt under section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner does not therefore require the public authority to take any further steps in relation to the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS0103648
Case Ref: FS50109031
Date: 14/06/2007
Public Authority: South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested an audit report of South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust’s (the “Trust”) finances for 2004-2005. The Trust refused to provide this information and cited the exemption at section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”), stating that the disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs, and would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. After reviewing the information and considering the case, and the public interest in maintaining this exemption, the Commissioner has decided that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing the information. He therefore decided that the Trust was wrong to withhold the information in question under section 36 of the Act, and, as such, was in breach of section 1 of the Act. He has also decided that the Trust failed to satisfy the requirements of section 17 in that it issued an inadequate refusal notice, when informing the complainant that there would be a delay in it responding to his request due to the consideration of the public interest test. In view of this decision the Commissioner requires the Trust to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50109031
Case Ref: FS50111129
Date: 13/06/2007
Public Authority: Office of Government Commerce
Summary: The complainant requested the RAG status of any government projects currently under Gateway Review and the name of the projects. The RAG status refers to a projects status i.e. Red, Amber or Green. The OGC confirmed it held two stage zero and one stage one Gateway Review in relation to the Government ID Card Project but refused to disclose the RAG status of the project as the information requested was subject to section 33 ‘Audit Functions’ and section 35 ‘Formulation of government policy’ of the Act and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner’s review of the application of sections 33 and 35 found that the exemption under section 33 was engaged as the OGC has demonstrated that release of the information would, or would be likely to prejudice the exercise of any of its audit functions but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner found that section 35 was engaged but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner’s decision is to uphold the complaint and order the OGC to disclosure the requested information within 35 calendar days from date of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 33 – Complaint upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50111129
Case Ref: FS50095271
Date: 13/06/2007
Public Authority: HM Revenue and Customs
Summary: The Complainant made requests for information to HMRC under two headings: Tax Gap and EC Treaty Challenges. HMRC withheld all the information, with sections 29, 31 and 35 being applied individually to various different areas of the information. The Commissioner investigated the application of all the exemptions. Under the Tax Gap heading, the Commissioner found that section 29 was not engaged, section 31 was not engaged and 35 was engaged and the public interest favoured disclosing the information. Under EC Treaty Challenges the Commissioner found that section 29 was engaged and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. As section 29 was engaged the Commissioner did not investigate the application of sections 31 and 35. The Commissioner requires HMRC to disclose the information under the Tax Gap heading within 35 calendar days from date of this notice. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 29 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50095271
Case Ref: FS50101815
Date: 13/06/2007
Public Authority: Central & Eastern Cheshire Primary Care Trust
Summary: The complainant requested a list of the delegates who had attended an event organised by the Eastern Cheshire NHS Primary Care Trust (the “PCT”) as part of a programme of public consultation called the Future Health Care Project, together with their contact details and their “status information”. The PCT provided a list of the job titles of the delegates and the organisations that they represented. However, it refused to provide the names and contact details of the delegates, and cited the exemption at section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “FOIA”), stating it believed that the disclosure would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the PCT informed him that it no longer sought to rely on an exemption to withhold the majority of the information – it now sought only to withhold the contact details, where the delegates had provided personal contact details, i.e. residential addresses, personal email accounts. After investigating the matter the Commissioner decided that the PCT had breached the requirements of section 1, in so far as it had cited an exemption which it had subsequently partially withdrawn. The Commissioner also concluded that the public authority had breached the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA by failing to issue an adequate refusal notice. He did, however, uphold the PCT’s decision to withhold the personal contact details under section 40 of the FOIA. Central and Eastern Cheshire NHS Primary Care Trust has now taken over the Eastern Cheshire NHS Primary Care Trust’s responsibilities, and therefore this Notice is addressed to it.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50101815
Case Ref: FS50146950
Date: 13/06/2007
Public Authority: The Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts (Monitor)
Summary: The complainant requested copies of correspondence exchanged between Monitor and two other public authorities, namely Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust and the South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority for the twelve months prior to February 2005. The complainant also asked for minutes of any meetings involving Monitor and the two other public authorities. During this period Monitor was considering Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust’s application to become a foundation hospital trust. The public authority provided the complainant with several documents but redacted parts of a number of these documents on the basis of section 40 and 41. Having reviewed the redacted information the Commissioner is satisfied that section 41 has been applied correctly in regard to the majority of the withheld information. However, the Commissioner also decided that a small portion of the redacted information was not exempt by either section 40 or 41, but this information has now been communicated to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50146950
Case Ref: FS50071451
Date: 13/06/2007
Public Authority: House of Commons
Summary: The complainant asked for copies of original submissions with copies of receipts, rental agreements, or mortgage interest statements from six named MPs in 2001/2, 2002/3 and 2003/4 under the Additional Costs Allowance. The House of Commons refused the request on the grounds that it was personal data and that disclosure would be unfair. The Commissioner found that the House does not hold rental agreements or mortgage interest statements in respect of all the six named MPs. The Commissioner decided that the requested information is personal data and that its fully itemised disclosure would be unfair. However he has decided that it would not contravene the data protection principles to disclose information showing the totals paid under specified headings within the Additional Costs Allowance. He has therefore ordered disclosure of the total amounts claimed by reference to each of these headings. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50071451
Case Ref: FS50070469
Date: 13/06/2007
Public Authority: House of Commons
Summary: The complainant asked for a list of items claimed by Tony Blair in 2001/2, 2002/3 and 2003/4 under the Additional Costs Allowance. The House of Commons refused the request on the grounds that it was personal data and that disclosure would be unfair.
The Commissioner decided that the requested information is personal data and that its fully itemised disclosure would be unfair. However he has decided that it would not contravene the data protection principles to disclose information showing the totals paid under specified headings within the Additional Costs Allowance. He has therefore ordered disclosure of the total amounts claimed by reference to each of these headings. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50070469
Case Ref: FS50079619
Date: 13/06/2007
Public Authority: House of Commons
Summary: The complainant asked for a list of items claimed by Margaret Beckett in 2001/2, 2002/3 and 2003/4 under the Additional Costs Allowance. The House of Commons refused the request on the grounds that it was personal data and that disclosure would be unfair. The Commissioner decided that the requested information is personal data and that its fully itemised disclosure would be unfair. However he has decided that it would not contravene the data protection principles to disclose information showing the totals paid under specified headings within the Additional Costs Allowance. He has therefore ordered disclosure of the total amounts claimed by reference to each of these headings. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50079619
Case Ref: FS50124671
Date: 13/06/2007
Public Authority: House of Commons
Summary: The complainant asked for a detailed breakdown of MPs Additional Cost Allowance. Following clarification of her request she confirmed she wanted a breakdown of the Additional Cost Allowance claimed in 2005/6 for specifically named MP’s. The House of Commons refused the request on the grounds that it was personal data and that disclosure would be unfair. The Commissioner decided that the requested information is personal data and that its fully itemised disclosure would be unfair. However he has decided that it would not contravene the data protection principles to disclose information showing the totals paid under specified headings within the Additional Costs Allowance. He has therefore ordered disclosure of the total amounts claimed by reference to each of these headings. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld Case Ref: FS50091142
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50124671
Case Ref: FS50074146
Date: 12/06/2007
Public Authority: Nottinghamshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested details of expense claims made by a Councillor, these included claims made for telephone calls and the complainant required the numbers called. The public authority provided information but redacted the telephone numbers called on the basis that the exemption at section 40(2) of the Act applied, the numbers are personal data and to disclose them would breach the first data protection principle. The Commissioner agrees that the exemption has been applied correctly although the public authority breached section 17(1) of the Act as the Refusal Notice provided was not fully compliant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50074146
Case Ref: FS50088298
Date: 12/06/2007
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The Complainant requested copies of five project licence applications as detailed in the abstracts published on the Home Office web site. The Home Office refused to disclose the licences in full citing exemptions under sections 21 ‘Information accessible by other means’, 38 ‘Health and Safety’, 40 ‘Personal Information’, 41 ‘Information Provided in Confidence’, 43 ‘Commercial Interests’ and 44 ‘Prohibitions on disclosure’. The Commissioner investigated and found that section 44 had been correctly applied. As section 44 is an absolute exemption and applies to all the information covered by the complainants request the Commissioner has not investigated the application of the other exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure and he requires no steps to be taken by the public authority. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50088298
Case Ref: FS50087181
Date: 11/06/2007
Public Authority: Office for National Statistics
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Authority relating to copy correspondence and/or emails that allegedly passed between various officers employed by the Authority. The request related to events which took place in 2001 and related directly to the boycott of the 2001 Census in Wales by the complainant and the Independent Wales Party. The Authority responded by disclosing a number of internal emails relating to the boycott. The complainant indicated to the Authority that the response was insufficient and further qualified his request. The Authority then refused the request by virtue of section 36 stating that the disclosure of the information would inhibit the “free and frank exchange of views” between officials. The Commissioner sought copies of the withheld information which was provided by the Authority. At this stage it became apparent that the withheld information related to internal communications between the Authority and their legal advisers. The Authority sought to rely on section 42 stating that the information was exempt from disclosure by way of legal privilege. The Commissioner decided, in this case, the authority applied the Act appropriately by refusing the request by virtue of section 42.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50087181
Case Ref: FS50092069
Date: 11/06/2007
Public Authority: Sunderland City Council
Summary: The complainant asked the Council for information held about the Tyne and Wear Anti-Fascist Association (“TWAFA”). In its response the Council provided to the complainant most of the information requested, but redacted the names and certain contact information in relation to TWAFA and Council staff. The Council also withheld TWAFA annual reports. The Council cited the exemptions contained in sections 38(1), 40 and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act (“the Act”). Following discussions with the Commissioner, the Council released a redacted copy of a TWAFA annual report. The Commissioner has decided that sections 38 and 40 are engaged and that the public interest lies in favour of maintaining the section 38 exemption. However, he has decided that the Council was in breach of section 17 (1) of the Act as it failed to supply a refusal notice within 20 working days. It also failed to complete a review of its decision within the time specified in its complaints procedure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50092069
Case Ref: FS50104995
Date: 07/06/2007
Public Authority: George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested information about the circumstances surrounding the departure of a previous Chief Executive of the public authority. The public authority refused to disclose the information on the basis that it was personal data and disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act. The public authority also refused to disclose this information on the basis of section 41. The Commissioner has reviewed the requested information and has decided that the public authority correctly applied section 40 in this case. In view of this, the Commissioner did not consider the public authority’s application of section 41.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS5014995
Case Ref: FS50096459
Date: 07/06/2007
Public Authority: Commission for Local Administration in England (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 Doncaster 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. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and has found that the public authority correctly applied the statutory prohibition and that the information requested was exempt from disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50096459
Case Ref: FS50091142
Date: 5/06/2007
Public Authority: Yorkshire Forward
Summary: On 28 June 2005 the complainant requested information from Yorkshire Forward, a Regional Development Agency, regarding corporate events it had hosted from 2003 to date. Yorkshire Forward responded on 4 July 2005, providing information it had already issued in response to a previous request made by a different requester. The Information Commissioner finds that Yorkshire Forward complied with section 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”).Yorkshire Forward refused to provide the names and organisations of delegates attending its events on the basis of the exemption at section 40(2) of the Act. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Yorkshire Forward correctly applied section 40(2) in respect of the names of individuals attending events. However the Commissioner considers that the names of the organisations represented would not normally be personal data and therefore would not be exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the Act. He requires that Yorkshire Forward disclose this information in respect of events it hosted between 2003 and 28 June 2005. The Commissioner also finds that the refusal notice issued by Yorkshire Forward did not comply with section 17 of the Act. 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 11 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50091142
Case Ref: FS50078603
Date: 5/06/2007
Public Authority: London Borough of Southwark
Summary: The complainant asked the Council for information about the criteria it used to determine the appropriate grades for its staff positions. The request required disclosure of information about the Council’s application of the Hay job evaluation scheme. The Council withheld the requested information under section 43 of the Act on the grounds that release would prejudice the commercial interests of Hay Group. The Commissioner decided that the Council had incorrectly withheld the information under the Act and that the information should therefore be released. He also decided that the Council had breached section 1 of the Act by its failure to provide information to which the complainant was entitled. He found that the Council had also breached section 17 of the Act by its failure to specify the exemption on which it relied to withhold part of the requested information and that it had failed to address the public interest test in respect of its withholding of all the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50078603
Case Ref: FS50073646
Date: 5/06/2007
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The Complainant requested information from the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) in relation to a complaint he had made to the Lord Chancellor about a judge. The DCA supplied some of the information it held in relation to the request in order to comply with the complainant’s right of subject access under the Data Protection Act 1998, in addition to some other information. However, it withheld the remaining information, stating that it was exempt from disclosure under the Act. Different exemptions were applied to various aspects of the information depending upon its subject matter: Section 32 – Court Records, Section 36 – Prejudice to Effective Conduct of Public Affairs, Section 40 – Personal Information, Section 41 – Information Provided in Confidence, Section 42 – Legal Professional Privilege. However, the DCA informed the complainant that some of the withheld information had previously been supplied to him by virtue of him being a party to various court cases and him having made complaints to it about the conduct of a judge. It therefore additionally applied section 21 (Information accessible to applicant by other means) to this information. The Commissioner has decided that the withheld information is exempt by virtue of sections 32, 36 and 42. He did not therefore consider the application of sections 40 and 41. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the DCA held no information in relation to the request other than that which he was supplied in order to conduct his investigation. However, he requires the Ministry of Justice (the DCA’s successor body as of 9 May 2007) to supply the complainant with the schedule of documents to which section 21 applies.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint upheld, FOI 32 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50073646
Case Ref: FS50092955
Date: 4/06/2007
Public Authority: Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Summary: The complainant made a request for the date of birth information of a number of registered keepers, whose names and address details had previously been provided to him following a vehicle enquiry request to the DVLA. The DVLA initially considered the requested information to be exempt under section 40. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority indicated that to retrieve the information requested would exceed the costs limit under section 12 of the Act because the DVLA would need to instruct its IT contractors to carry out specific searches through its driver database .The Commissioner decided that although it may have been possible to retrieve some information within the costs limit this information would be exempt under section 40 of the Act on the basis that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. He also decided that the DVLA has not breached section 16 of the Act. However the Commissioner has concluded that it did fail to comply with its duty under section 17(1) and section 17(7) of the Act as it failed to state in its refusal notice why the exemption applied or that it had a procedure for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for information or the right to appeal to the Commissioner.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50073646
Case Ref: FS50086622
Date: 4/06/2007
Public Authority: Department of Trade and Industry
Summary: The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with Part 1 of the Act. He has decided that exemptions in sections 36 and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are engaged and, in the case of the former, that the balance of the public interest favours withholding the information sought. Accordingly there is no remedial action that the Commissioner requires DTI to take. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50086622
Case Ref: FS50090867
Date: 4/06/2007
Public Authority:Financial Services Authority (FSA)
Summary: The complainant requested information related to a review conducted between the FSA and Lincoln Assurance Limited. The FSA disclosed some information but withheld some documents under section 43 and others under section 44 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated the application of both exemptions and found that the FSA was correct to apply section 44. However, the Commissioner found that section 43 was not engaged and the Commissioner therefore requires the FSA to disclose the information withheld by virtue of section 43 within 35 calendar days from the date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50090867