Case Ref: FS50117046
Date: 21/08/2008
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant made a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for the release of certain material from archived files entitled ‘Englandspiel’. The FCO refused to release the material, citing the exemption contained at section 23 of the Act. Following his investigation the Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority was correct in its application of the exemption. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO breached the following procedural sections of the Act when dealing with this request: section 1(1)(a), section 10(1) and section 17(1). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 23(1) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 1(1)(a) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50117046
Case Ref: FS50106800
Date: 20/08/2008
Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service
Summary: The complainant sought access to information recorded in ledgers from the late 19th and early 20th centuries held in the Metropolitan Police Service Special Branch Office (the “public authority”). Access was originally agreed for the complainant, outside of the terms of the Freedom of Information Act (“the Act”), but only on the proviso that he would not “publish or communicate to any other person or agency any details contained in these records…” Access was denied under the Act on the grounds that it was exempt under sections 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means), 31 (law enforcement) and 38 (health and safety). In subsequent correspondence the public authority added section 12 (fees) and section 24 (national security) to their reasons for withholding the information. The Commissioner also considered section 30 (investigations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the fees limit did not apply. He finds that section 21 was appropriately applied to the limited information which is already available. He also finds that the exemptions at sections 24, 31 and 38 were not engaged and, whilst section 30(2) was engaged, that the public interest in disclosing the information was not outweighed by the public interest in maintaining it. Additionally, he finds under section 11, that the public authority can give effect to the complainant’s request for inspection of the ledgers. Consequently, the complaint is partly upheld. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 21- Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 Complaint Upheld, FOI 31- Complaint Upheld, FOI 11 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50106800
Case Ref: FS50150268
Date: 18/08/2008
Public Authority: The Office of Fair Trading
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Office of Fair Trading (the “OFT”) about a case involving Seabeach Limited, which he believed the OFT was investigating. The OFT refused his request, neither confirming nor denying whether it held such information, under section 44 and 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”), in reliance on Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OFT was correct both to rely on sections 44 and 31 to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds that the refusal notice issued was issued in breach of section 17(1) and 17(3).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50150268
Case Ref: FS50150648
Date: 14/08/2008
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant requested expense details in relation to BBC Scotland and Reporting Scotland. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis that it was not a public authority in relation to the complainant’s request because the information was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature within the meaning set out in Schedule 1 of the Act. As an alternative argument the BBC has applied the exemption under section 12 of the Act to withhold the information from the complainant. After a careful evaluation of the nature of the request, and the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has incorrectly applied Schedule 1 and that the information is held for purposes other than those of journalism, art and literature. The Commissioner also finds that the exemption under section 12 is engaged and that the BBC should contact the complainant in order to refine his request in line with its duty under section 16 of the Act
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17- Complaint Upheld, FOI 16- Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50150648
Case Ref: FS50163359
Date: 14/08/2008
Public Authority: Centro
Summary: The complainant made a number of information requests in three separate letters to the public authority. The public authority deemed the requests vexatious in accordance with section 14 of the Act. The Commissioner considered the requests in the context and background in which they were made and has upheld the public authority’s refusal to comply with the requests by virtue of section 14 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50163359
Case Ref: FER160254
Date: 14/08/2008
Public Authority: Surrey County Council
Summary: The complainant requested Surrey County Council (‘the council’) to disclose all application documents it held relating to the widening of a vehicle crossover carried out on her neighbour’s property. In addition, the complainant requested any recorded information held which details the reasons why her neighbour contested the Council’s decision to refuse the first application that was submitted. Concerning the first element of this request, the Council confirmed that it does not hold any further recorded information to that already provided. Regarding the second part of the request, the Council advised the complainant that no recorded information is held of this description. As the complainant remained dissatisfied and believed further recorded information must be held, she approached the Commissioner. After considering the case, including both the submissions made by the complainant and the Council, the Commissioner concluded that no further information is held by the Council. He noted that the Council had already supplied copies of all information it does hold and therefore concluded that the Council had complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR in this case.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FER 14 – Complaint Upheld, FER 5 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER160254
Case Ref: FS50129974
Date: 13/08/2008
Public Authority: Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary
Summary: The complainant requested details of the make and model of any vehicles provided to the chief officers within the public authority and that are put to personal use. The public authority confirmed that two Assistant Chief Constables are provided with vehicles that are put to personal use. The public authority withheld the details of the make and model of these vehicles, relying upon sections 31(1)(a), (b), and (c) (law enforcement) and 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety). The Commissioner finds that these exemptions are not engaged and the public authority is required to disclose the information withheld. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with section 10(1) in failing to disclose information about the cost incurred through the provision of vehicles to chief officers within 20 working days of receipt of the request and section 17(1)(b) in failing to cite the relevant subsections of the exemptions relied upon.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31- Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50129974
Case Ref: FS50103726
Date: 11/08/2008
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant asked the BBC for details of the total cost of overseas trips made by BBC Wales staff during the first 10 months of 2005. In addition he requested a breakdown of these costs. The BBC refused to provide this information stating that it was not a public authority in relation to the complainant’s request because the requested information was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature within the meaning set out in Schedule 1, Part VI of the Freedom of Information Act (“Schedule 1”). As an alternative argument the BBC has applied the exemption under section 12 of the Act (cost limit) to withhold the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50103726
Case Ref: FS50106712
Date: 11/08/2008
Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
Summary: On 7 March 2005 the complainant requested a copy of information from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) regarding his investment in Fiox Limited. This information would originally have been held by the FSA’s predecessor, Investment Management Regulatory Organisation (IMRO). The FSA refused the request, applying the exemptions under sections 43(2) and 44, and subsequently sections 40(2), 21 and 31(1) (g). After investigation, the Commissioner considers that the FSA correctly applied the exemptions under sections 21, 40(2) and 44. In relation to sections 31(1) (g) and 43(2), the Commissioner has decided that the FSA was incorrect to apply these exemptions and orders the FSA to disclose to the complainant any information requested which was withheld on the basis of them. Finally the Commissioner finds that the FSA was in breach of section 17 of the Act in failing to state in its refusal notice and on internal review all the exemptions it subsequently applied. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 31 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50106712
Case Ref: FS50104809
Date: 11/08/2008
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence
Summary: The complainant made a successful information request to MOD under the Act. Subsequently he asked to see copies of the documentation created during the consideration of that request. MOD, although it did agree to provide the complainant with a summary setting out the main stages of the process it had gone through, refused to provide the information sought and cited section 36 of the Act. The Commissioner took the view that, apart from a small amount of information and the names of the staff who had dealt with the matter, section 36 had not been applied correctly and that the information should be released. 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 FS50104809
Case Ref: FS50179353
Date: 06/08/08
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to request the names and job titles of the UK and Russian diplomats who were expelled as a result of the diplomatic dispute that followed the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006. The public authority refused to disclose the information relying on the exemption in section 40 of the Act (personal information). The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has found that the requested information constitutes personal data and its disclosure would breach the first data protection principle which requires that personal data be processed fairly and lawfully. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with the Act and requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40(2) – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50179353
Case Ref: FS50126011
Date: 05/08/08
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Cabinet Office to request a copy of the Cabinet Office papers prepared for a meeting of the Asylum and Migration Working Group meeting in October 2005 which took the decision to continue the Accession States Worker Registration Scheme. The Cabinet Office informed the complainant that the requested information is held but that it is exempt from disclosure under section 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act (Formulation or development of government policy and Ministerial communications). The Cabinet Office also stated that it had concluded that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemptions. The Commissioner accepts that the information withheld from the complainant engages the specified exemptions but has concluded that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner therefore requires the Cabinet Office to provide the withheld information to the complainant. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50126011
Case Ref: FS50113735
Date: 05/08/08
Public Authority: Lambeth PCT
Summary: The complainant requested information about inquiries and investigations carried about by a Convenor. The public authority refused to disclose the information relying upon the sections 21, 36, 40 and 41 exemptions to various parts of the request. It also claimed that it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner decided that all the information that it did hold was exempt from disclosure under section 41 of the Act. However he also decided that the public authority incorrectly applied section 21 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50113735
Case Ref: FS50168774
Date: 04/08/08
Public Authority: HMRC
Summary: The complainant, a firm of accountants, asked HMRC to provide various pieces of internal correspondence which related to the tax affairs of one of its clients. HMRC initially refused to disclose any information on the basis of the exemption contained at section 31(1)(d) of the Act. HMRC subsequently provided the complainant with copies of the correspondence but with redactions made on the basis of 31(1)(d). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation HMRC then withdrew its reliance on section 31(1)(d) and argued that the redacted information was exempt on the basis of section 44(1)(a) of the Act because of the prohibition on disclosure provided by the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. The Commissioner has concluded that the redacted information is exempt on the basis of section 44(1)(a) but has also found that HMRC committed a number of procedural breaches in handling this request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44(1)(a) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 (1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1)(c) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50168774