Case Ref: FER0178729
Date: 31/07/2008
Public Authority: Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a draft report produced by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) which focused on storage methods for radioactive waste. (The final version of this report had already been placed in the public domain.) The NDA argued that the draft version was exempt by virtue of the exceptions contained at regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations and that for both exceptions the public interest favoured withholding this information. The Commissioner has concluded that the draft report does not fall within the scope of 12(4)(d). However he has also decided that the draft report does fall within the scope of 12(4)(e) and is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(4)(d) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12(4)(e) – Complaint Not Upheld, EIR 14(2) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0178729
Case Ref: FS50150272
Date: 30/07/2008
Public Authority: HM Revenue and Customs
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information about when it and Treasury ministers had first become aware of identity fraud in the Tax Credit system, and for any estimates of suspected identity fraud cases which it had made in 2005. The public authority noted that some of the information was already reasonably accessible and therefore exempt under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’), while the rest was exempt under section 31(1)(a), although it provided a generalised explanation of its anti-fraud measures. After the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority agreed that the greater part of the withheld information should have been released, its failure to do so in response to the request constituting a breach of section 10(1) of the Act and section 1(1)(b). The Commissioner decided that some further information withheld under section 31(1)(a) should also be disclosed. Further, he decided that information which the public authority considered not to fall within the request did in fact do. In respect of this information section 31(1)(a) is not engaged and therefore the failure to disclose it constituted a breach of section 1(1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner also decided that the public authority had failed to2 comply with its duty to issue the refusal notices within the time limit set out in section 10(1) of the Act, which constitutes a breach of section 17(1) of the Act. Further the refusal notice of 10 April 2006 failed to refer to the section 21 exemption explicitly, a breach of section 17(1)(b) of the Act. Finally in failing to confirm and deny that it held information covered by the second part of the first request and to provide it to the complainant HMRC breached section 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1)(a) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31(1)(a) – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50150272
Case Ref: FS50156040
Date: 30/07/2008
Public Authority: Student Loans Company Ltd
Summary: The complainant made a request to the Student Loans Company Ltd (the “SLC”) for a copy of the ‘Class Training Manual’. The SLC refused to disclose the manual, stating that it believed that this information constituted a trade secret and was therefore exempt from disclosure under section 43(1). After investigating this complaint the Commissioner decided that the manual did not constitute a trade secret. Therefore the exemption is not engaged, and the information should be disclosed. The Commissioner also decided that the SLC did not meet the requirements of section 17(1)(b). The Commissioner therefore found that the SLC had acted in breach of section 1(1)(b) of the Act. He also found that it had acted in breach of section 17(1)(b) and section 10 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43(1) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50156040
Case Ref: FS50196199
Date: 30/07/2008
Public Authority: West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the West Hertfordshire NHS Hospitals Trust (the “Trust”) for information relating to a document called “Comparison of Centralising Acute Services at Hemel Hempstead General Hospital or Watford General Hospital”. The Trust failed to respond to this request despite repeated reminders to do so. The Commissioner has therefore decided that the Trust has failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Act and must now do so within 35 days of the date of the notice. Furthermore the Commissioner has decided that the Trust failed to comply with the time for compliance under section 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1)(a) – Complaint Upheld, FOI – 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50196199
Case Ref: FS50088745
Date: 29/07/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: On 11 May 2005 the complainant wrote to the Cabinet Office to request disclosure of the minutes and agendas of all meetings between the then Prime Minister and his former strategy adviser Lord Birt dating from 1 January 2005 and a schedule of any such documents held. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose this information and upheld its decision upon internal review placing reliance upon the exemptions under sections 35 and 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Formulation of Government Policy and Prejudice to Effective Conduct of Public Affairs). Upon considering a complaint dated 9 September 2005 the Commissioner upheld the decision of the Cabinet Office on the basis of the exemptions cited under sections 35 and 36 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50088745
Case Ref: FER0085500
Date: 29/07/2008
Public Authority: Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Summary: The complainant requested a report into an application for a grant towards a proposed biomass generation plant. This was initially refused under sections 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43 (commercial interests) of the Act. The public authority was later advised by the Commissioner that the information withheld fell within the definition of environmental information in the Regulations and that it should consider what exceptions from the EIR may apply. The public authority cited Regulations 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings of public authorities provided by law), (e) (commercial confidentiality) and (g) (environmental protection). The Commissioner finds that the information is on emissions and, therefore, Regulation 12(9) applies. As Regulation 12(9) provides that information on emissions cannot be subject to any of the exceptions provided in Regulations 12(5)(d) to (g), the Commissioner finds that the exceptions cited by the public authority are not engaged. The public authority is required to disclose to the complainant the information withheld. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(5)(d) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12(5)(e) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12(5)(g) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5(1) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5(2) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14(3)(a) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14(3)(b) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14(5)(a) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14(5)(b) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0085500
Case Ref: FS50175732
Date: 29/07/2008
Public Authority: Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the destruction of his bankruptcy case file. The public authority provided some information but explained that the remaining information would have been held with the destroyed case file and was therefore not held. The Commissioner has investigated and finds that the majority of the information is not held. However the Commissioner did find that part of the information is held and should have been disclosed. The public authority has now disclosed this information to the complainant. The Commissioner finds that in failing to disclose this information within twenty workings days from receipt of the request the public authority breached the requirements of section 10 and that in failing to provide the relevant information by completion of the internal review also breached section 1(1)(b) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50175732
Case Ref: FS50179206
Date: 29/07/2008
Public Authority: University of Oxford
Summary: The complainant made a request for information for some documents that were referred to in a letter from the public authority to the Inland Revenue on 2 August 1977. The public authority replied that it did not hold these documents. The public authority in its internal review carried out a further search and came to the same conclusion. However it later located a small amount of information that was within the scope of the request which it provided to the complainant after its internal review. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority breached section 1(1)(a) in denying that it held relevant information. It also breached section 10(1) in failing to comply with section 1 within twenty working days of the request and section 1(1)(b) in failing to provide the relevant material by the completion of the internal review. He has concluded that on a balance of probabilities the public authority does not hold any further information relevant to the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1)(a) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50179206
Case Ref: FS50141374
Date: 28/07/2008
Public Authority: Department For Transport
Summary: The complainant requested the Net Present Value (“NPV”) figures offered by the unsuccessful bidders for the South Western rail franchise. This request was made to the Department for Transport (the “DfT”). The DfT confirmed that it held this information, but refused to disclose it, stating that it believed that this information was exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of the Act. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that section 43(2) was not engaged. Therefore he found that the DfT had acted in breach of section 1(1)(b) of the Act. He also found that it had acted in breach of section 17(1)(b) and (c) of the Act by seeking to rely upon an exemption not previously cited in its refusal notice. He also found that the DfT had breached section 10 of the Act. The Commissioner requires that the withheld information should be disclosed. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1)(c) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43(2) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50141374
Case Ref: FS50165511
Date: 29/07/2008
Public Authority: The Department for Work and Pensions
Summary: The complainant submitted six requests to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for information about the benefits payable to those in polygamous marriages, including information used for the preparation of parliamentary questions on the this subject. The DWP provided some information in response to these requests but withheld further documents on the basis of sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(d), 36(2)(b), 36(2)(c) and 42(1). Having reviewed the withheld information, the Commissioner accepts that this information falls within the scope of the various exemptions cited by the DWP. The Commissioner accepts that for the application of all of these exemptions the public interest favours withholding the requested information. The only exception is a small piece of information which falls within the scope of section 35(1)(a) for which the Commissioner has concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35(1)(a) – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 35(1)(d) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 36(2)(b)(i) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 36(2)(b)(ii) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 42(1) – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50165511
Case Ref: FS50122432
Date: 28/07/2008
Public Authority: Department of Health
Summary: The complainant made a request to the Department of Health (the “DoH”) regarding the release of details of abortion statistics for 2003, where those abortions had been carried out under ‘ground (e)’. This request was made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). Some information had already been published by the DoH in the annual abortion statistics for England and Wales. However, it suppressed statistics where the number of occurrences was less than 10, instead marking it as “…”. The DoH refused to disclose this information, and cited section 36 of the Act. After carrying out an internal review the DoH upheld the use of section 36, and also cited sections 40 and 44, as it believed that the disclosure of this information would be in breach of the Abortion Regulations 1991. During the course of the investigation the DoH informed the Commissioner that it was only relying upon sections 40 and 44 to withhold the information in question. After considering the circumstances of the case the Commissioner decided that the requested information was not personal data, and that therefore section 40 was not engaged. He also decided that the disclosure of the withheld information would not be in breach of the Abortion Regulations 1991, and therefore section 44 was not engaged. Therefore he requires that the withheld information be released. Additionally the Commissioner also decided that the DoH had acted in breach of section 17(1), as it had taken longer than 20 working days to issue a refusal notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1) – Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50122432
Case Ref: FER0145666
Date: 28/07/2008
Public Authority: Export Credits Guarantee Department
Summary: The complainant requested information contained in a report by the Business Principles Unit of the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) of its assessment of the case for ECGD to support a United Kingdom interest in a project to build a pipeline to transport oil from Baku to Ceyhan via Tbilisi. He also requested the minutes of an ECGD meeting, held to review the report, and related correspondence along with a list of any correspondence and related information being withheld from him. He also complained to the Commissioner of excessive delay by ECGD. ECGD disclosed parts of the report and some related documentation but withheld parts of the report, the minutes and some correspondence, citing what it saw as relevant sections of the Act and the exceptions contained in Regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(a), and 12(5)(e) of The Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner decided that the Regulations applied to all of the information and that ECGD must disclose in full both the report and the relevant sections of the minutes. On procedural matters, he found that ECGD breached Regulations 5, 7 and 14. Exceptions breached were those specified under Regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(a). The Commissioner severely criticised ECGD’s excessive delay in responding to the request. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 7 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12(4)(e) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12(5)(a) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0145666
Case Ref: FS50199479
Date: 28/07/2008
Public Authority: National Offender Management Service
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to4 the compensation payments made to prisoners and former prisoners. The public authority replied that section 43 (commercial interests) 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 two separate occasions before the complainant complained to the Commissioner. It was also extended a further time after the Commissioner set a deadline. The Commissioner finds a delay of over six months in carrying out a public interest determination to be in breach of section 17(3). The Commissioner has also found the public authority in breach of section 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) of the Act. The public authority is required to issue a notice explaining why section 43 is engaged in relation to each part of the request and where it believes the balance of the public interest lies. 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 1(1)(a) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1)(c) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(3) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50199479
Case Ref: FS50195955
Date: 28/07/2008
Public Authority: National Offender Management Service
Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority that related to communications that passed between the Ministry of Justice, the Probation service and others about the preparation of the answer to a Parliamentary question asked by the complainant’s MP on his behalf. The public authority extended the deadline for responding on four occasions. In five months prior to the involvement of the Commissioner no substantive response to the request was provided. The Commissioner gave the public authority a final opportunity to provide a substantive response to the request and heard nothing. The Commissioner has found that the public authority has breached section 10 as it has taken considerably more than twenty working days to comply with section 1(1) of the Act. The Commissioner also found the public authority in breach of section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to either provide the information or issue a valid refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the Act within 35 days of the date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1)(a) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50195955
Case Ref: FS50198451
Date: 28/07/2008
Public Authority: National Offender Management Service
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the items confiscated from prisoners at HMP Risley and HMP YOI Thorn Cross. The public authority replied that section 31(1)(f) (maintenance of security and good order in prisons) 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 at least three separate occasions before the complainant complained to the Commissioner. The Commissioner finds a delay of over eight months in carrying out a public interest determination to be in breach of section 17(3). The Commissioner also found the public authority in breach of section 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and section 10(1). The public authority is required to issue a notice explaining why section 31(1)(f) is engaged and where it believes the balance of the public interest lies. 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 1(1)(a) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1)(c) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(3) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50198451
Case Ref: FS50150711
Date: 24/07/08
Public Authority: HMRC
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information relating to draft regulations referred by the public authority to the Social Security Advisory Committee, and to the Committee’s consequent advice and reports to the public authority. The public authority provided information about the draft regulations, and required an extension of time to consider the public interest test regarding the advice and reports, after which it concluded that that information was exempt under section 36(2)(b) and (c). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority decided that the balance of the public interest now favoured disclosure of the remaining information. However, the Commissioner decided that the public authority failed to comply with its duty to issue the refusal notice within the time limit set out in section 10(1), which constitutes a breach of section 17(1) of the Act, and also extended the time to consider the public interest test unreasonably, a breach of section 17(3).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(3) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50150711
Case Ref: FS50077719
Date: 21/07/08
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for records of meetings between Tony Blair and other world leaders in the Azores and Crawford, Texas in 2003. The public authority claimed that a substantial amount of information about the meetings was already in the public domain, and withheld the requested information as exempt under sections 27(1)(a), 27(2) and 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that the information was exempt under section 27 and that the public interest test in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50077719
Case Ref: FS50104541
Date: 21/07/08
Public Authority: Health & Safety Executive
Summary: The complainant asked the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to tell him the names of those who had died as a result of incidents in the workplace which were reported to it. HSE refused, citing the section 44 exemption under the Act. HSE referred to: the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR); and, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with the Human Rights Act 1998. In later discussions with the Commissioner, HSE additionally relied on the section 21 and section 41 exemptions. The Commissioner found that HSE had not complied with sections 10 and 17 of the Act. He decided that the section 21, 41 and 44 exemptions were not engaged and that HSE should have provided to the complainant the information requested. The Commissioner invited HSE to respond favourably to such requests in the future but to provide the information not more frequently than at monthly intervals.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50104541
Case Ref:FS50169012
Date: 17/07/2008
Public Authority: Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary
Summary: The complainant, a local newspaper, requested statistical information relating to the number of NIPs (Notice of Intended Prosecution) issued for speed limit infringements at two safety camera enforcement sites on the A339 in Upper Wootton. It also requested information about the value of fines collected as a result of the issue of the NIPs. In the request, the complainant made specific reference to an earlier decision of the Information Tribunal which ordered the disclosure of similar information. The public authority took the view that the circumstances in this case were sufficiently different from the earlier case and refused to provide the requested information citing the exemptions at section 31 (Law Enforcement) and section 38 (Health and Safety). It also argued that the public interest in maintaining these exemptions outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner has decided that the information is not exempt from disclosure under the Act and requires the public authority to disclose it to the complainant as a total figure and as annual figures where those are available for full calendar years. In failing to provide the information requested, the public authority breached section 1(1)(b) of the Act. The public authority also failed to provide an adequate refusal notice and, in doing so, breached the requirements of sections 17(1)(b) and section 17(3)(b).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50169012
Case Ref: FS50147679
Date: 14/07/08
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the business affairs of David Mills, the husband of Tessa Jowell MP. While the Commissioner found that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) did not hold the information, he criticised FCO for leading the complainant to believe that it did. The Commissioner concluded that FCO had breached section 10 of the Act in failing to respond to the information request within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1)(a) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50147679
Case Ref: FS50129143
Date: 14/07/08
Public Authority: HM Revenue & Customs
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for: a report following an investigation into allegations about a proposed amnesty to United Kingdom tobacco producers; and information about the investigator. The public authority provided information about the investigator but withheld the report, citing sections 31, 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i), 41 and 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). During the Commissioner’s investigation it also identified some information as falling within section 21 of the Act. The Commissioner decided that the public authority had not complied with its obligations under section 1(1) by failing to communicate to the complainant information to which he was entitled, on the mistaken basis that it was exempt from disclosure under sections 31, 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i), 41 and 44 of the Act. It also acted in breach of section 21 of the Act in failing to advise the complainant that some of the information was already in the public domain. Furthermore, in only disclosing some information to the complainant after he had made a complaint to the Commissioner, the public authority did not comply within the time limit in section 10(1) of the Act, a breach of sections 1(1)(b) and 17(1). The Commissioner required the public authority to disclose the information which it had improperly withheld. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50129143
Case Ref: FS50093000
Date: 14/07/08
Public Authority: Office of Government Commerce
Summary: The complainant requested access to all of the documents held by the Office of Government Commerce with regard to the ministerial direction issued by the Secretary of State for Defence to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence on 30 July 2003, which concerned the order of 20 Hawk jet trainer aircraft. The complainant was provided with a redacted letter from the OGC Chief Executive to the Deputy Prime Minister dated 11 July 2003 (the July letter). The public authority refused to disclose the withheld parts of this letter, initially citing sections 35 and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and later claiming sections 26 and 29. After a careful evaluation of the requested information, the submissions of the parties and the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not properly applied sections 26 and 35 of the Act. With regard to sections 29 and 43, the Commissioner found that the OGC had correctly applied the exemptions to parts of the information, but that it was in the public interest to partially disclose other parts of the withheld information. The Commissioner has therefore ordered the OGC to disclose to the Complainant a version of the July letter with fewer redactions than applied in the version already disclosed. The Commissioner has also found that the public authority had breached section 17(1) of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 29(1)(a) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 42(2) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 26(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 29(1)(a) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50093000
Case Ref: FS50174489
Date: 10/07/08
PublicAuthority: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Summary: The complainant requested statistical information from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) regarding tax credit claims. HMRC responded explaining that the requested information was not held as it did not collate the statistical information requested. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the information is held but that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12(1) – Complaint not upheld, FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint not upheld, FOI 1(1)(a) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(5) – Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50174489
Case Ref: FS50158413
Date: 10/07/08
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant made a request to the Ministry of Justice for dates on which ten named judges were both nominated and authorised to preside over court cases involving family law. The public authority provided the complainant with the dates for some of the judges but explained that it did not hold some of the information. The complainant has argued that the information provided was incorrect. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has found that the public authority has disclosed all of the information it holds falling within the scope of the request and requires no steps to be taken. The Commissioner also found that the public authority breached section 17(1) of the Act by failing to deal with two earlier requests within 20 working days. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 1 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50158413
Case Ref: FS50122058
Date: 09/07/08
Public Authority: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to request information about the Minister of Culture’s issuing of a certificate of immunity from listing regarding BorthwickWharf, Deptford. DCMS released much of that which was requested but withheld the remainder under section 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 42 (Legal professional privilege) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner has found that the information requested was environmental information and that the request should have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). Under the EIR, the Commissioner has decided the following: The information withheld under section 42 is exempt from disclosure under the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) (Course of justice); Apart from the names of officials and third parties, the exception at regulation 12(4)(e) (Internal communications) is engaged in relation to the information withheld under section 36. However, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure; In relation to the withheld names of officials and third parties, the Commissioner considers that this information is personal data and exempt from disclosure under exception at regulation 13 (Personal data); Several procedural breaches of the legislation under Regulations 5, 11 and 14 were committed by the Department in its handling of the request. The Commissioner therefore requires DCMS to disclose the information withheld from the complainant, subject to the redaction of the names of officials and third parties and the document to which exception 12(5)(b) is engaged. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 13 – Complaint Not Upheld, EIR 12(5)(b) – Complaint Not Upheld, EIR 5(1) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5(2) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12(4)(e) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11(4) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50122058
Case Ref: FS50186715
Date: 07/07/08
Public Authority: Legal Services Commission
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Legal Services Commission to request a copy of a report it had received in connection with an application for legal aid. The public authority refused the request under section 44 of the Act which provides for an exemption where disclosure is prohibited under any other law or enactment. The public authority said that the relevant statutory prohibitions were section 38 of the Legal Aid Act 1998 and section 20 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The Commissioner has considered the complaint and has found that section 38 of the Legal Aid Act does apply to the requested information and that therefore it is exempt from disclosure under section 44 of the Act. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50186715
Case Ref: FS50074593
Date: 07/07/08
Public Authority: Medical Research Council
Summary: The complainant requested from the MRC copies of independent reviewers’ reports and its Research Boards’ assessments of applications for funding for research into ME which had been refused between 2002 -2005. The MRC refused to disclose the information on the basis of the exemptions contained in sections 36, 40 and 41 of the Act. The Commissioner determined that it had correctly applied section 41 to the reviewers’ reports and the Research Boards’ assessments. He decided that, to the extent that any information in the Research Boards’ assessments was not exempt under section 41, it was exempt from disclosure under section 36. The MRC was not required to take any further action. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not Upheld FOI 36 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50074593
Case Ref: FS50124423
Date: 03/07/2008
Public Authority: Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary
Summary: The complainant requested information about vehicle recovery work carried out by a particular operator contracted to the public authority to carry out this work within a specified area. The public authority disclosed the total number of recoveries made within the period specified in the request, but withheld the remainder of the information under section 43(2) (commercial interests). The public authority later amended its stance in respect to part of the request and stated that the information requested was not held. The Commissioner finds that section 43(2) is not engaged as there is no real or significant risk of prejudice to commercial interests and the public authority is required to disclose the withheld information. The Commissioner further finds that the public authority was correct in concluding that it did not hold some of the information requested, but that it failed to comply with section 10(1) in not informing the complainant that this information was not held within 20 working days of receipt of the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10- Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50124423
Case Ref: FS50184109
Date: 03/07/2008
Public Authority: Commission for Social Care Inspection
Summary: The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the Commission for Social Care Inspection (the “CSCI”) for a copy of a care report for the Cottage Christian Nursing Home (the “CCNH”) dated 17 July 2002. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CSCI breached section 1(1)(a) of the Act in failing to deny that it holds a report of the date specified by the complainant in his request. The Commissioner is satisfied that the CSCI does not hold the information requested and therefore that it does not have an obligation to provide it to the complainant under section 1(1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner has also found that the CSCI did not comply with the requirements of section 10 of the Act, in that it did not respond to the complainant’s request within twenty working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10- Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50184109
Case Ref: FS50094496
Date: 03/07/2008
Public Authority: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Summary: The complainant requested information about a drug used in the prevention of dietary-induced laminitis in horses. Defra withheld the information, citing the exemption in section 43 of the Act. The Commissioner found that the exemption in section 43(1) was not applicable. However, he found that the exemption in section 43(2) was engaged but the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information and the information should therefore be released.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50094496
Case Ref: FS50130305
Date: 03/07/2008
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant requested information about cases held on the Clearing House Case Management System. Some of the information requested by the complainant was disclosed, but other information was withheld on the basis that an automated search for this information was not within the capabilities of the Clearing House Case Management System and a manual search for this information would exceed the cost limit. The Commissioner finds that the cost estimate made by the public authority was accurate and that the public authority complied with the duty to provide advice and assistance.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50130305
Case Ref: FS50141388
Date: 03/07/2008
Public Authority: North East Wales Institute of Higher Education
Summary:The complainant requested a copy of a report on the public authority’s engineering department, written by an external assessor. The public authority refused to release the full report, citing the exemptions at sections 40, 41 and 43 of the Act. The authority did however provide the complainant with information that related specifically to the complainant. The authority stated that the report was provided to it in confidence and that disclosure would constitute an actionable breach of confidence. The Commissioner has decided, in this case, that the authority applied the Act appropriately by refusing the request by virtue of section 41. The Commissioner has also decided that parts of the report constitute the personal data of third parties, the disclosure of which would breach the data protection principles. In addition, the Commissioner decided that the authority breached section 17 of the Act in its initial response. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50141388
Case Ref: FS50177327
Date: 02/07/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant submitted a request for information held by the Cabinet Office about the so-called ‘Shrewsbury Two’. The Cabinet Office explained that a file originating in the Cabinet Office relating to papers about the ‘Shrewsbury Two’ had been transferred to the National Archives and is open and available for inspection. The Cabinet Office also explained that it has retained a small amount of information, but it considered this information exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office were correct to withhold this information on the basis of section 23. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that in handling this request the Cabinet Office failed to provide a refusal notice compliant with section 17 of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 23 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50177327