June 2008

Case Ref: FER0145824
Date: 30/06/2008
Public Authority: London Borough of Camden
Summary: The complainant requested the Council to release a list of its investigation files relating to reported planning infringements in the borough prior to any enforcement action being authorised for the three month period preceding his request. The council refused the complainant’s request citing regulations 13 and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner has considered the requested information and the Council’s application of these exceptions. In respect of those investigations where the alleged planning breach relates to properties owned by individuals and sole traders, the Commissioner has concluded that this information is exempt from disclosure under regulation 13 of the EIR. For those remaining cases where the alleged planning infringement relates to a company, the Commissioner has considered the Council’s application of regulation 12(5)(b) and concluded that this exception is not engaged. The Commissioner has therefore ordered the Council to release this information to the complainant within 35 days of this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 13 - Complaint Partly Upheld , EIR 12 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0145824

 Case Ref: FS50174491
Date: 30/06/2008
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested documents relating to internal communications held by the Home Office relating to his company’s use of the Freedom of Information Act. The Home Office refused to disclose this information under section 36 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that section 36 is engaged; however the Commissioner finds that the public interest favours disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information within 35 calendar days of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50174491

Case Ref: FS50142539
Date: 26/06/2008
Public Authority: De Montfort University
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the salaries of senior staff at the public authority. The public authority made limited disclosures within the scope of this request but withheld certain information which would identify individuals’ salaries. It argued that disclosure would be unfair and in contravention of the first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998. As such it was exempt under Section 40(2) of the Act. It argued that the information was also exempt under Sections 41 and 43 of the Act. The Commissioner has decided that all the withheld information is exempt under Section 40(2) of the Act. He has therefore not considered whether the other exemptions cited are also applicable. However, the Commissioner has found that the public authority failed to comply with a number of its procedural obligations under section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Not Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50142539

Case Ref: FS50147637
Date: 26/06/2008
Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
Summary: The complainant requested information from the FSA about Barclays Private Bank’s involvement with Columbian drugs money. The FSA refused to disclose the information under sections 31, 40, 43 and 44 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated and found the exemptions at sections 21, 40 and 44 of the Act are engaged. However, the Commissioner found that the exemption and sections 31 and 43 are not. The Commissioner requires the FSA to disclose the information withheld under sections 31 and 43 within 35 calendar days of this notice. Certain parts of this decision notice will be redacted until all litigation relating to this case is complete, the redactions will be then reviewed, depending on the outcome of the litigation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 21 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
Full transcript of Decision Notice FS50147637
Case Ref: FS50200667
Date: 26/06/2008
Public Authority: National Offender Management Service
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to indeterminate sentences. The public authority replied that section 35 (formulation of government policy) was engaged and that it would carry out a public interest determination within a target timeframe. The Commissioner finds that section 17(1)(c) was breached at this point as the public authority failed to inform the complainant why the exemption was engaged. The timeframe was readjusted on three separate occasions before the complainant made a valid compliant to the Commissioner. The Commissioner finds a delay of over six months in carrying out a public interest determination to be a breach of section 17(3). The public authority also failed to cite a valid exemption under the Act because it did not cite the relevant subsection and therefore breached section 17(1)(b) of the Act. The public authority is required to issue a notice explaining which exemption is engaged and why, where it believes the balance of the public interest lies and its reasoning for this.  If the public authority concludes that the balance of the public interest favours disclosing the information or no longer considers the exemption to apply, the information should be provided to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
 View PDF of Decision Notice FS50200667

Case Ref: FS50125204
Date: 25/06/2008
Public Authority: London Borough of Hounslow
Summary: The complainants requested the Council to release the names and contact details of all staff at the Council, including the department in which they work and their head of department. The Council considered the request and refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 31, 36 and 40 of the Act. The Commissioner first considered the Council’s application of section 36 of the Act. He concluded that the disclosure of the names and contact details of all staff would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. He also concluded that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. In respect of the department in which each member of staff works, the Commissioner reached the decision that this information becomes meaningless without the name of each staff member to which it relates. As he concluded that the names of staff should not be disclosed, he decided not to consider this aspect of the complainants’ request any further. Regarding the name of head of each department, the Commissioner decided that section 31 of the Act did not apply. Concerning the Council’s application of section 40, the Commissioner concluded that the name of head of each department is personal data. However, he reached the view that disclosure would not contravene the Data Protection Act and therefore that this information should be released to the complainants within 35 days of this Notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50125204

Case Ref: FS50153967
Date: 23/06/2008
Public Authority: The Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Cabinet Office to request records of exchanges between Tony Blair and Rupert Murdoch. The Cabinet Office responded to the request by stating that the information could not be disclosed since the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit of £600. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office altered its position to say that it no longer believed that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.  Instead, it subsequently disclosed some of the information to the complainant but withheld the remainder under section 35 (Formulation of Government Policy), section 40 (Personal Information), section 41 (Information Provided in Confidence) and section 43 (Commercial Interests). Having analysed the withheld information, the Commissioner has decided that all the remaining information should be disclosed to the complainant apart from two sentences within a specified document which he accepts is exempt under section 41. He has also decided that the Cabinet Office breached several procedural provisions of the Act in its handling of the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50153967

Case Ref: FS50111328
Date: 23/06/2008
Public Authority: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Summary: The complainant requested from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport various aspects of information relating to the declarations of interests made under the Ministerial Code by Ministers within the Department. The Department supplied the complainant with much of the information it held in relation to the request but withheld the remainder under section 41 of the Act (Information provided in confidence) and section 43 (Commercial interests). By the time of his investigation, the Department no longer wished to rely upon section 43 to withhold the information to which that exemption was applied and had supplied this information to the complainant. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that the remaining withheld information is exempt under section 41. In its handling of the complainant’s request, the Commissioner found that the Department failed to respond within the statutory time limit.  In this case, the failure constituted a breach of sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act (‘Time for compliance with request’ and ‘Refusal of request’). 
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41- Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Compliant Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50111328

Case Ref: FS50145475
Date: 23/06/2008
Public Authority: Department for Work and Pensions
Summary: The complainant made a request to The Pension Service for advice referenced in earlier correspondence to him from the authority. The Pension Service explained to the complainant that it did not hold a copy of the advice but that the advice was held by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, The Pension Service suggested the complainant redirect his request. The Commissioner has investigated and is satisfied that The Pension Service does not hold a copy of the advice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld.
 View PDF of Decision Notice  FS50145475
Case Ref: FS50131138
Date: 19/06/2008
Public Authority: Mid Suffolk District Council
Summary: The complainant requested the Council to release a copy of the tendering document submitted by the contractor awarded the contract to carry out the repairs, maintenance and work at Mid Suffolk Leisure Centre for compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act. The Council responded informing the complainant that it was willing to make a redacted version of the document available for his inspection. However, it advised the complainant that it was unwilling to disclose the financial details submitted by the contractor (mainly the price quoted for each task to be undertaken) as it considered this information was exempt from disclosure under section 43 of the Act. The Commissioner considered the requested information and concluded that section 43(2) of the Act is not engaged. He has therefore requested the Council to disclose the requested information within 35 days of this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50131138

Case Ref: FS50144199
Date: 19/06/2008
Public Authority: Peterborough City Council
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning the council’s submission of documents relating to a complaint of maladministration that she had made to the Local Government Ombudsman. Items of the requested information were variously withheld under s43 (commercial interests), s21 (information accessible by other means), s30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities), s31 (law enforcement), s40 (personal information) and s41 (information provided in confidence). The complainant withdrew her complaint in respect of one item. One item was found to be environmental information, was found to be already publicly available and therefore Regulation 6 of the Regulations applied. With regard to the remaining item the Commissioner decided that the exemptions were incorrectly applied apart from some information which was exempt under s40(1) of the Act. The Commissioner found that the council failed to comply with s1 and s17 of the Act and failed to conform with the s45 Access Code of Practice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 45 – Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50144199

Case Ref: FS50198141
Date: 18/06/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant asked for a list of requests made to the Cabinet Office, showing in each instance, the date of the Cabinet Office’s response and whether the request resulted in full, partial or non disclosure of information.  The Cabinet Office responded that the information was not held.  The Cabinet Office has argued that the process of gathering the information requested into a list constitutes information “creation”, an activity which the Act does not require public authorities to undertake.  The Commissioner does not accept this view and has found that information falling within the scope of the request was held by the Cabinet Office.  In failing to communicate this the Cabinet Office breached section 1(1) of the Act. The Commissioner instructed the Cabinet Office to provide the complainant with the requested information or, should they estimate that to do so would exceed the “appropriate limit” as defined in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, provide the complaint with an indication of what  information can be provided within the appropriate limit to assist the complainant in reframing the request so that it might be accommodated within the appropriate limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1) – Complaint Upheld
 View PDF of Decision Notice FS50198141
Case Ref: FS50155552
Date: 18/06/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant asked for a list of documents disclosed by the Cabinet Office under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the "Act") and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the “EIR”) and the dates of their disclosure. The Cabinet Office responded that the information is not held. The Commissioner’s investigation found that, whilst constituent elements of the information requested are held by the Cabinet Office, they are not held in the form of a consolidated list. The Cabinet Office has argued that the process of gathering the information requested into a list constitutes information “creation”, an activity which the Act does not require public authorities to undertake.  The Commissioner does not accept this view and has found that information falling within the scope of the request was held by the Cabinet Office. The Commissioner instructed the Cabinet Office to provide the complainant with the requested information or, should they estimate that to do so would exceed the “appropriate limit” as defined in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, provide the complaint with an indication of what information can be provided within the appropriate limit, to assist the complainant in reframing the request so that it might be accommodated within the appropriate limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1) – Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155552

 Case Ref: FS50115188
Date: 17/06/08
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant requested the number of staff in certain categories engaged to work on Eastenders, the annual staff costs of Eastenders and the range of contract values. The BBC provided to the complainant the number of staff engaged but refused to provide the remaining information on the basis that it was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature. During the course of the investigation the BBC also sought to rely on exemptions under the Act to withhold the information. The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the BBC misapplied the Schedule 1 derogation and that the information requested falls within the scope of the Act. The Commissioner investigated the BBC’s application of the exemptions and found that the range of contract values is exempt under section 12 as to provide the information would exceed the cost limit. However the Commissioner found that the annual staff costs of Eastenders is not exempt under section 43 and should therefore be provided to the complainant within 35 calendar days of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50115188

Case Ref: FS50123005
Date: 16/06/2008
Public Authority: United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
Summary: The complainant requested information held by the UKAEA in connection with its meetings with its PR firm. UKAEA refused to disclose the information held stating it was exempt under section 40, 41 and 43 of the Act. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation UKAEA disclosed the information withheld under sections 40 and 43 but continued to withhold some information under section 41. The Commissioner investigated the application of section 41 and has found that the exemption is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 41 within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice  FS50123005

Case Ref: FS50130129
Date: 16/06/2008
Public Authority: Warwickshire County Council
Summary: The Complainant requested a section of an internal audit report of a contract between the council and a private company for the purposes of highway maintenance. The council refused the request claiming that it engaged the exemptions of the Act in section 43 (commercial prejudice) and section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner's decision is that section 43 does not apply to the information. He has also decided that although section 36 is applicable, the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50130129

 Case Ref: FER0152885
Date:10/06/2008
Public Authority: Environment Agency
Summary: The complainant requested information about the individual who had complained to the Environment Agency about the complainant’s septic tank and sought a copy of the letter of complaint. The Commissioner finds that much of the information is personal data relating to the complainant and was therefore exempt from disclosure by virtue of regulation 5(3) of the EIR, which was not cited by the Agency. He also found that the remaining information in the letter is personal data relating to third parties and that it is exempt by virtue of regulations 13(1) and (2)(a) as the disclosure of it would breach the first data protection principle, and the Agency had acted correctly in withholding that information. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR13 - Complaint partially upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0152885

Case Ref: FS50084359
Date: 05/06/2008
Public Authority: Plymouth Primary Care Trust
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a contract agreed by the Plymouth Primary Care Trust for the provision of an independent treatment centre. He also requested copies of correspondence concerning the contract. The public authority refused to disclose some of the requested information on the basis of the exemptions contained in sections 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal information), 41 (confidential information), 42 (legal professional privilege), 43(1) (trade secrets) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the Act. The Commissioner determined that some of the information contained in the contract, relating to how the service provider had calculated its prices, was exempt under section 41 and a limited amount of information contained in the additional documents was exempt under sections 40 and 43(2). He ordered the disclosure of the remainder of the information. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Partly Upheld , FOI 41 - Complaint Partly Upheld , FOI 43 - Complaint Partly Upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 38 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50084359

Case Ref: FS50124800
Date: 02/06/2008
Public Authority: Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant is acting on behalf of the family of a deceased patient (“Mr A”), and requested a copy of a Root Cause Analysis Report into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Mr A and another patient (“Ms B”). This request was made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust (the “Trust”). The Trust provided an edited version of the Report, stating that some information had been withheld under sections 31, 41, and 44 of the Act. During the course of the investigation the Trust also cited section 40 to withhold some of the information in question. The Trust also informed the Commissioner that it had disclosed the edited version of the Report to the complainant on a discretionary basis, outside of the Act. Therefore the Commissioner has focused his investigation on the parts of the Report not already disclosed by the Trust. After considering the details of the case the Commissioner decided that parts of the withheld information were correctly withheld under sections 40 and 41 of the Act. However, the Commissioner concluded that a small part of the withheld information was not exempt under any of the exemptions cited by the Trust. He also noted that the Trust had not cited an exemption to a small amount of the withheld information. He therefore believes that these sections of the Report should be disclosed. The Commissioner also decided that the Trust did not meet the requirements of sections 17(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(7) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50124800

Case Ref: FS50088378
Date: 02/06/2008
Public Authority: The National Archives
Summary: The complainant made a request to The National Archives for access to the transcript and papers of the Fisher inquiry into the trial for the murder of Mr Maxwell Confait in 1972.  The National Archives made some of the files relating to the inquiry available to the public; however it withheld substantial parts of the transcript evidence relying on sections 40(2) and 41 of the Act.  As a result of the Commissioner’s investigation, it was revealed that most of this evidence was in the public domain at the time of the request.  A redacted version of the transcript was made available to the complainant in January 2008. The redacted information relates mainly to the evidence of witnesses who were promised confidentiality when they participated in the Fisher inquiry.  The Commissioner is of the view that this information is exempt by virtue of sections 40(2) and 41 of the Act.  Therefore the Commissioner does not require The National Archives to take any remedial steps in relation to this request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Not Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50088378

Related downloads


View the document library

FAQs

Read all our FAQs