Case Ref: FS50116822
Date: 27/09/2007
Public Authority: Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of an internal Audit Report into allegations of financial irregularities made against the former Director of Research Governance of Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the “Trust”), together with any background material regarding these allegations. This request was made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). The Trust refused to provide this information and initially cited the exemptions at section 30 and section 41 of the Act. During the course of the case the complainant confirmed to the Commissioner that he now only sought access to the Audit Report. The Trust subsequently informed the Commissioner that it was now relying upon section 40 and section 31 of the Act to withhold the information in question. After considering the Report in detail, the Commissioner concluded that it contained the personal data, as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”), of both the former Director of Research Governance and of staff members who had given evidence to the writers of the Report, or who were involved in the events surrounding the allegations. After considering the case the Commissioner decided that in relation to the personal data of the former Director, the release of this information would not be in breach of the DPA. He also concluded that if the Report was released in a partially redacted format with the personal data of staff members, other than that of the former Director, anonymised, the release of this information would not be a breach of the DPA. Therefore he concluded that if the Report was anonymised in this fashion section 40(2) would not be engaged.The Commissioner also decided that section 31 did not prevent disclosure of this information. Finally the Commissioner decided that the public authority was in breach of section 17, as it failed to state in its refusal notice the exemptions it later sought to rely upon. Consequently, the complaint was partially upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50116822
Case Ref: FS50082569
Date: 27/09/2007
Public Authority: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Summary: The complainant requested an executable version of the economic model used by NICE in its assessment of Donepezil, Rivastigmine, Galantamine and Memantine, drugs that are used to treat Alzheimer’s Disease. NICE refused to provide the information citing the exemptions in sections 36 and 41 of the Act. The Commissioner has decided that NICE appropriately relied upon section 41 when refusing to supply the information. He has also found that NICE breached section 10 of the Act in initially failing to respond to the request within twenty working days. The Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the information tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50082569
Case Ref: FS50092311
Date: 27/09/2007
Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
Summary: The Complainant requested the letter sent by the FSA to Tony Blair following the Prime Ministers speech in June 2005 and any documents relating to the letter. The FSA refused to disclose the information under section 31 and 36 of the Act, in applying the public interest test the FSA concluded that the public interest lay in maintaining the exemption. During the course of the investigation the FSA disclosed the letter but redacted two sentences, the Commissioner’s investigation therefore only relates to the two redacted sentences. The Commissioner investigated the FSA’s application of the exemptions and found that the exemption at section 31 of the Act was not engaged. The Commissioner found that the exemption at section 36 of the Act was engaged and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50092311
Case Ref: FS50142680
Date: 27/09/2007
Public Authority: East Sussex County Council
Summary: The complainant asked the Council for a copy of a letter that its Director of Children’s Services had written to a Crown Court judge. The Council withheld the letter under s36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), s40 (personal information) and s41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner decided that the requested information was exempt under s40. He also found that the Council should have undertaken an internal review of its decision to refuse disclosure as requested by the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50142680
Case Ref: FS50154968
Date: 27/09/2007
Public Authority: East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from East Riding of Yorkshire Council (the Council) relating to its health and safety policy and procedures, particularly where the policies and procedures address how risk is assessed and managed. The Council refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it considered it to be vexatious under section 14 of the Act (vexatious or repeated requests). The Commissioner found that, given the history of the correspondence between the complainant and the Council regarding the issue of risk assessment, the request in question would impose a significant burden on the public authority in terms of expense and distraction and that it is designed to cause disruption and annoyance, has the effect of harassing the public authority and could be fairly characterised as obsessive. Therefore he decided that the Council was correct to apply the exemption under section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner also found that the Council had failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, and therefore had breached section 17(5) of the Act (refusal of request). The Council is not required to take any further steps in respect of this complaint. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2007/0109 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50154968
Case Ref: FS50150319
Date: 27/09/2007
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant made a request to the Cabinet Office for details of the person or persons who drafted the executive summary of the Iraq dossier. The public authority refused the request under Section 21 of the Act as it said that the issue of who drafted dossier, including its executive summary, had been considered as part of the Hutton Inquiry and that this information was available on the inquiry’s website. The public authority added that it held no further information. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and has found that the public authority applied section 21 correctly and that it holds no further information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. However, the Commissioner has found that the public authority breached section 17 of the Act by failing to issue the complainant with a refusal notice within 20 working days of receiving the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the information tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50150319
Case Ref: FS50130115
Date: 25/09/2007
Public Authority: Commission for Racial Equality
Summary: The complainant, representing the London Metropolitan University (LMU), sought access to communications between the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education during the period when the LMU had been under investigation for possible breaches of the race relations legislation. CRE initially said that it did not hold information in relation to one part of the request and refused to release other information it held, citing section 30 of the Act. This information was subsequently released to the complainant once the investigation had been completed, as was additional information relating to that part of the request for which CRE had previously said no information existed. The Commissioner found CRE to be in breach of section 1(1) of the Act, and of section 17(3) for an initial failure to consider the public interest test.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50130115
Case Ref: FS50109038
Date: 24/09/2007
Public Authority: The Tate Gallery
Summary: The complainant made a request for information, relating to The Tate’s purchase of an item of art work, which was refused under sections 40, 41, 43 and 36 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated The Tate’s refusal to withhold the information under section 40, 41 and 43 but not the application of section 36 as the information withheld under this exemption was subsequently disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that The Tate was correct in its application of sections 40 but that section 43 was not engaged. Section 41 was not considered as it was applied to the same information to which section 40 applied. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant, redacted of the information withheld under section 40, within 35 calendar days of this notice. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50109038
Case Ref: FS50133972
Date: 20/09/2007
Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
Summary: The Complainant requested the letter sent by the FSA to Tony Blair following the Prime Minister’s speech of June 2005. The FSA refused to disclose the information under section 31 and 36 of the Act, in applying the public interest test the FSA concluded that the public interest lay in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner investigated the FSA’s application of the exemptions and found that the exemption at section 31 of the Act was not engaged. The Commissioner found that the exemption at section 36 of the Act was engaged and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50133972
Case Ref: FS50103691
Date: 17/09/2007
Public Authority: Vehicle & Operator Services Agency (an executive agency of the Department for Transport)
Summary: The complainant requested details of a Vehicle & Operator Services Agency (“VOSA”) examiner’s maintenance report and findings. VOSA refused this request under section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). During the course of the investigation, VOSA also submitted that the information was exempt under section 32 of the Act. Having considered VOSA’s submissions the Commissioner has decided that the exemptions cited by VOSA were not applicable. However he has decided that the information was exempt under section 40 of the Act because it constituted personal data of the subject of the report and the disclosure of the information would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”). In addition, he has decided that the public authority had breached section 17(1) of the Act as it failed to adequately explain in its refusal notice which part of section 31 it was relying on and why it applied.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint upheld, FOI 32 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50103691
Case Ref: FER0066999
Date: 17/09/2007
Public Authority: Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to a planning application to demolish property used by Redcar & Cleveland College (the “College”) for redevelopment purposes. Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (the “Council”) claimed that most of the information sought was already available for public inspection. It asserted that the remainder consisted of “pre-application discussions” carried out with the College in confidence. It refused to supply this information, citing exemptions at section 41 and section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). The Information Commissioner considered that the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the “EIR”) was the appropriate access regime in respect of the information, but agreed with the Council’s re-assessment that the non-disclosure exception at regulation 12(5)(f) applied.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12 (5)(f) - Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0066999
Case Ref: FS50096973
Date: 17/09/2007
Public Authority: Department for Education and Skills
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) about a list of schools that were considered suitable to become city academies. The public authority refused to disclose the list, relying upon section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner has considered the exempt information in question and is satisfied that the public authority has applied section 36 correctly.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50096973
Case Ref: FS50113714
Date: 17/09/2007
Public Authority: The Financial Services Authority
Summary: The complainant requested from the Financial Services Authority (the “FSA”) a copy of a 1997 report concerning the Personal Investment Authority and Colonial Mutual. The FSA initially withheld the information on the basis of the exemption in section 44 of the Act but, subsequent to its internal review, also chose to rely on section 41. As a result of further enquiries, the Commissioner considers that section 41 applies to all the information requested. However, as the exemption was not used in the original refusal, the authority is found to be in breach of section 17. There are no steps required.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50113714
Case Ref: FS50117814
Date: 17/09/2007
Public Authority: Chief Constable West Midlands Police
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the numbers of Notices of Intended Prosecutions issued by West Midlands Police (WMP) over a twelve month period. The information sought concerned instances where non-service of the notice was alleged and instances where the notice had been issued more than 13 days after an alleged offence. The Commissioner has determined that WMP may hold information connected with the first part of the request. However, he accepts that in order to determine whether information relevant to that part of the request is actually held, it would be necessary to manually search 93,000 records relating to alleged speeding offences. In relation to part 1 of the request, the Commissioner has concluded that WMP was not under an obligation to comply with section 1(1)(a) because to do so would have exceeded the appropriate limit in section 12 of the Act. The Commissioner has decided that WMP inappropriately denied holding relevant information. He considers that, in accordance with section 17(5), the police should have issued a Refusal Notice refusing to comply with section 1(1)(a), citing the appropriate limit. Further, he considers that WMP failed to provide sufficient advice and assistance in relation to this part of the request as required by section 16.
The Commissioner has also determined that WMP does not hold information relevant to the second part of the request. The Central Ticket Office computer cannot generate a Notice of Intended Prosecution after 13 days and the computer would reject an attempt to do this after that period of time. The initial response by WMP that it did not hold this information was in fact correct and complied with section 1(1)(a) of the Act. In relation to both parts of the request the Commissioner has determined that WMP breached section 10 in failing to respond within twenty working days. However, the Commissioner has not ordered WMP to take any remedial steps in this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50117814
Case Ref: FS50132656
Date: 13/09/2007
Public Authority: London Borough of Redbridge
Summary: The complainant requested from the London Borough of Redbridge (“the Council”) confirmation of the dates of ingoing and outgoing correspondence taken directly from what he referred to as “the Leisure Department Correspondence Database” (“the database”). The complainant’s belief in the existence of the database was based on telephone conversations between himself and officers in the Leisure Department which the complainant recorded. Although the Council dealt with the request as a general enquiry, it did communicate to the complainant that the database did not exist and therefore satisfied its obligations under section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”). The Council maintained this position during the course of the investigation and, despite the complainant’s recordings of telephone conversations, the Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) is satisfied that the database does not exist and therefore the information requested is not held.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50132656
Case Ref: FS50133038
Date: 13/09/2007
Public Authority: Carlton-Le-Moorland Parish Council
Summary: The complainant submitted nine requests for information to Carlton-Le-Moorland Parish Council over a period of seven months. The requests concerned a meeting of the Council on 9 November 2005, and issues raised subsequently by the Council with the Charity Commission, regarding a charity in Carlton-Le-Moorland. The Council provided some information, confirmed that some information was not held, and failed to address other requests for information. The complainant asked the Commissioner to review the Council’s handling of three of the requests. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council does not hold any of the information requested by the complainant. As the complainant is now aware that the Council does not hold the information requested in these three requests, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50133038
Case Ref: FS50142032
Date: 10/09/2007
Public Authority: Isle of Wight Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority on the amount of money allocated to a particular project. The public authority responded that it did not hold the information on all three elements of the request. The Commissioner found that the public authority did in fact hold the information on one element of the request, which the public authority subsequently provided to the complainant. However, this was not done within 20 working days of the request and so the Commissioner found that section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act) had been breached. The Commissioner was satisfied that the public authority did not hold the information on the two remaining elements of the request and had therefore complied with section 1(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50142032
Case Ref: FS50142028
Date: 10/09/2007
Public Authority: Isle of Wight Council
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning the lack of response to correspondence sent to the public authority. Following intervention from the Commissioner, the public authority informed the complainant that it did not hold the information, but this was not within the 20 working days permitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner therefore decided that the public authority had breached section 10 of the Act. The Commissioner was satisfied that the public authority did not hold the information and therefore found that it had complied with section 1 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50142028
Case Ref: FS50107704
Date: 10/09/2007
Public Authority: Cambridgeshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority on the attendance in work of an individual on a specific day. The public authority refused the request by applying section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the public authority confirmed to the complainant that it held the information but maintained its application of section 40(2) to withhold the information itself. The Commissioner upheld the public authority’s application of section 40(2) but found that the public authority did not issue a timely or adequate refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the Act. This Decision Notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50107704
Case Ref: FS50148261
Date: 05/09/2007
Public Authority: Civil Aviation Authority
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the final report by an operator to the CAA of the Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) of an incident which occurred on 29 August 2004. The Public Authority relied on section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to withhold the information. The Public Authority cited section 23 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 as the relevant statutory bar on disclosure which informed their reliance on section 44 of the Act. After considering the case the Commissioner upheld the Public Authority’s decision to withhold the information under section 44 of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the Public Authority to take any further steps in relation to the complainant’s request. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50148261
Case Ref: FS50097811
Date: 04/09/2007
Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
Summary: The complainant sought information from the Financial Services Authority (“FSA“) that was generated by and/or considered during the FSA investigation of his complaint against HSBC Investment Bank plc. The FSA refused to disclose certain information relying on section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 citing section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”) as the relevant statutory bar. The Commissioner, after investigation and upon considering the relevant documents, finds that the FSA were correct in their application of the exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50097811
Case Ref: FS50127512
Date: 04/09/2007
Public Authority: Commission for Local Administration in England
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Local Government Ombudsman to request information regarding its investigation of a complaint she had previously made against Southend-on-Sea Borough Council. The public authority refused to supply some of the information, relying upon section 44 of the Act which provides for an exemption from the right to know where disclosure is prohibited under any other enactment. The relevant statutory prohibition is section 32(2) of the Local Government Act 1974. The Information Commissioner has considered the complaint and has found that the information was exempt and that the public authority applied section 44 of the Act correctly. However the Commissioner has found that the public authority breached section 17 of the Act by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50127512
Case Ref: FS50074331
Date: 03/09/2007
Public Authority: Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Summary: The complainant requested correspondence with three tobacco firms which led to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with HMRC. HMRC refused to disclose this information under section 44 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated the application of section 44 and found that the exemption had been applied correctly. The Commissioner also found that HMCE did not respond to the complainant’s request in compliance with sections 17 (1) and 17 (3) of the Act. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50074331
Case Ref: FS50154484
Date: 03/09/2007
Public Authority: Department for Regional Development for Northern Ireland
Summary: The complainant in this instance made a request to the Department for Regional Development for Northern Ireland (“DRD”) on 1 January 2007 for a) copies of statistics for the last 10 years regarding problems with annual reports and b) copies of strategies developed for clearing backlogs of annual reports and for preventing their recurrence (“the request”). The complainant had made numerous previous requests relating to the same theme since the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) came into force on 1 January 2005. The DRD replied to the complainant’s request on 29 January 2007 stating that in light of the previous requests the DRD considered the request to be vexatious and was therefore applying section 14(1) of the Act to the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50154484