Case Ref: FER0081530
Date: 30/09/2008
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant requested from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) information about the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline project. He was denied access to information in 272 documents held by FCO. There were major delays due to FCO’s handling of the matter which were compounded by delays within ICO. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, FCO released the majority of the information requested. The Commissioner decided that there had been breaches by FCO of both the Act and the EIR. A list of the relevant documents and exemptions and exceptions was agreed by the Commissioner’s staff with FCO officials. He decided that: some, but not all, of the information is environmental within the meaning of Regulation 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(c) of the EIR. As regards the Act, he decided that FCO was in breach of section 10(1) of the Act in not complying with section 1(1) of the Act within 20 working days. FCO was in breach of section 17(1) of the Act in refusing to provide information outside the timescale set out in section 10(1). FCO had correctly applied the exemptions contained in sections 27(1)(a), 27(1)(b) and 27(1)(d) when withholding the relevant information and in those cases the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. FCO had correctly applied the exemptions contained in sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) when withholding the relevant information and in those cases the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner decided that the section 41 exemption applied to information in two documents that FCO had withheld by incorrectly applying other exemptions. As regards the EIR, the Commissioner decided that FCO’s delays in considering the request and responding to it were in breach of EIR Regulations 5(2), 7(2) and 14(2). The failure to specify in the form of a schedule what information was being withheld was a further breach of EIR Regulation 5(2). FCO’s delays in reviewing its refusal of the complainant’s request were in breach of Regulation 11(4). FCO had correctly applied the exception contained in Regulation 12(4)(e) when withholding the relevant information and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. FCO had correctly applied the exception contained in Regulation 12(5)(e) when withholding the relevant information and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. FCO had correctly applied the exception contained in Regulation 12(5)(f) when withholding the relevant information and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(2) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 27(1)(a) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 27(1)(b) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 27(1)(d) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 35(1)(a) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 35(1)(b) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partially Upheld, EIR 5(2) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 7(2) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14(2) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11(4) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12(4)(e) – Complaint Not Upheld, EIR 12(5)(e) – Complaint Not Upheld, EIR 12(5)(f) – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0081530
Case Ref: FS50196977
Date: 30/09/2008
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant requested minutes of the meetings of the cross party group on House of Lords reform. This request was refused under section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy). The Commissioner is satisfied that the exemption is engaged, and has decided that – notwithstanding that the withheld information relates to a matter of such significance as House of Lords reform - in all the circumstances of this case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner has attached particular weight to the on-going and unresolved nature of policy formulation in relation to House of Lords reform, the risks of disruption to progress, the nature and status of the cross party group, the expectations of confidentiality which covered its discussions and the strong possibility that it may be re-convened.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35(1)(a) – Complaint Not Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50196977
Case Ref: FS50125293
Date: 25/09/2008
Public Authority: King’s College London
Summary: The complainant requested the standard operating procedures used by the public authority when testing for the use of performance enhancing substances by athletes. The public authority refused the request, citing sections 38(1)(a) (health and safety) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that the health of sports people would be likely to be endangered through disclosure and has upheld the public authority’s application of section 38(1)(a). However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the refusal notice issued by the public authority was inadequate and in breach of section 17. As the section 38(1)(a) conclusion covers the entirety of the information falling within the scope of the request, it has not been necessary for the Commissioner to reach any conclusion in respect to section 43(2).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 38(1)(a) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 17(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1)(c) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(3)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(7) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50125293
Case Ref: FS50124180
Date: 24/09/2008
Public Authority: The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service
Summary: The complainant requested all information held by the public authority relating to the discovery of a body in January 2006. The public authority initially refused the request under section 32 (court records) and stated that all relevant information had been passed to the Coroner. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the public authority issued a reconsidered response in which it refused the request under sections 30 (investigations), 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal information) and 44 (statutory prohibition). The Commissioner finds that the public authority was correct in refusing the request under section 30. As this applies to the information falling within the scope of the request in its entirety, no conclusion was formed in relation to the other exemptions cited by the public authority.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 30(1)(a)(i) – Complaint Not Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50124180
Case Ref: FS50123184
Date: 24/09/2008
Public Authority: Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted)
Summary:The complainant requested copies of Evidence Forms completed during an inspection of St Patrick’s Primary School, Bristol. The public authority refused the request, citing sections 33 and 41. The Commissioner finds that section 33 is not engaged, primarily as a result of the public authority having previously notified participants in inspections that their contributions may be subject to disclosure through the Act. In respect of some of the information the Commissioner further finds that section 41 is not engaged. Having reached these conclusions on the exemptions cited by the public authority, the Commissioner has also considered section 40 and has concluded that some of the information in question constitutes personal data of various individuals, including teachers. The Commissioner finds that the exemptions provided by sections 40(1) and 40(2) are engaged in respect of some of the information constituting personal data. The public authority is required to disclose to the complainant the information identified to the public authority separately from this notice
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 33(2) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 40(1) – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 40(2) – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50123184
Case Ref: FS50071188
Date: 22/09/2008
Public Authority: Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Summary: The complainant requested internal documents relating to the drafting of a consultation document on employment tribunals and the name(s) of the individuals involved. The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) informed the complainant that aside from the information disclosed to him, no further documents are held relating to the drafting of the consultation document. BERR also refused to disclose the individuals name under section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and finds that no further information is held regarding the consultation document and that BERR were correct in the application of section 40 to the individual’s name.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40(2) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50071188
Case Ref: FS50145985
Date: 22/09/2008
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant requested details of the disciplinary action taken against judges including their names, the reasons for the disciplinary action and dates. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to disclose this information under section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that section 40(2) is engaged and therefore the MOJ was not required to disclose the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40(2) – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17(1) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50145985
Case Ref: FER0162545
Date: 18/09/2008
Public Authority: London Borough of Waltham Forest
Summary: The complainant’s request concerned the proposed Tesco development at Highams Park and the legal advice the Council obtained concerning an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and whether one was required prior to a planning officer’s report dated 4 July 2005. The complainant obtained a copy of the internal legal advice the Council received dated 4 February 2004 but he believed this report and the planning officer’s report dated 4 July 2005 suggested that further legal advice was obtained on this issue and was therefore held by the Council. This was the substance of the complainant’s information request to the Council. The Council’s response to this request was unclear. In one response it stated that any such advice would be confidential and in another it advised the complainant that internal advice was sought; namely, the report dated 4 February 2004, but no further legal advice was obtained on this issue. As the complainant remained dissatisfied with this response he approached the Commissioner. The Commissioner considered the complainant’s request and the way in which this was handled by the Council under the EIR. He concluded that no further recorded information was held by the Council of that specified in the complainant’s request and therefore that regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applied in this case.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 14(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, EIR 12(4)(a) – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0162545
Case Ref: FS50187452
Date: 18/09/2008
Public Authority: Office of Communications
Summary: The complainant requested details of the complaints made to Ofcom in relation to BGTV. Ofcom refused to disclose the information under section 44 of the Act explaining that section 393 of the Communications Act prohibited it from disclosing the information. The Commissioner has investigated and found that section 393 does prohibit disclosure of the information and that section 44 of the Act is therefore engaged.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50187452
Case Ref: FS50201095
Date: 18/09/2008
Public Authority: Taunton Deane Borough Council
Summary: On 29 October 2007, the complainant requested information from the public authority about the withdrawal of its complaints procedure. The public authority has not responded to this request, despite the intervention of the Commissioner, and is therefore in breach section 1(1) of the Act. The Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to respond to the request.
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 FS50201095
Case Ref: FS50193659
Date: 15/09/2008
Public Authority: Liverpool Hope University
Summary: The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to Liverpool Hope University (the “university”) for information relating to enrolment of students at the university and refunds made for fees paid by students who did not go on to commence the course enrolled for. The university refused to provide the requested information and applied the exemption set out at section 40(2) of the Act, as the information contained personal data relating to a third party and to disclose this information would breach the principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”). After considering the case the Commissioner upheld the university’s decision to withhold the information under section 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The Commissioner did however find that the university was in breach of sections 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c) of the Act as it did not give the complainant enough detail as to exactly which subsection of section 40 it was relying upon and why this exemption had been engaged. Furthermore the Commissioner has found that the university is also in breach of section 10(1) as it did not provide an adequate refusal notice within the twenty working day time period specified by that section. The Commissioner does not require the university to take any further steps in relation to the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40(2) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 40(3)(a)(i) – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1)(c) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50193659
Case Ref: FS50156539
Date: 11/09/2008
PublicAuthority: Child Support Agency
Summary: The complainant requested the name and address of the solicitor who had provided advice to the Child Support Agency (the CSA) in relation to an application for a special payment referral. The CSA provided the name of the corporate section in which the solicitor worked and its address, but refused to disclose the actual name of the solicitor citing the exemptions at sections 36(2)(c) and 38 of the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority also cited the exemption at section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the information is the personal data of the solicitor, the disclosure of which would breach the first data protection principle. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the public authority applied the Act appropriately in citing the section 40(2) exemption. However, the Commissioner decided that the authority initially breached sections 10 and 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50156539
Case Ref: FS50145663
Date: 11/09/2008
Public Authority: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority relating to the number of notifications of replacement cattle ear tags received, broken down by manufacturer. The public authority provided some information but refused to release any information broken down to individual manufacturer level, citing the exemption at section 43 of the Act. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the public authority further cited the exemption at section 41 of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 1 of the Act by inappropriately citing the exemptions at section 43 and 41. Accordingly, the Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information requested. In addition, the Commissioner considers that the authority breached the requirements of section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17- Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50145663
Case Ref: FS50121687
Date: 10/09/2008
Public Authority: The Broads Authority
Summary: The complainant requested the Council to release the following information for all vessels registered for use on the Broads; the name and registration of each vessel, its make and model, type or class, dimensions, propulsion method and horsepower. The Council refused the request citing sections 31(1)(a) and 41(1) of the Act. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the authority confirmed that it was now willing to disclose the name and registration number of each vessel. However, it remained of the view that the remaining information was exempt from disclosure under the exemptions it previously cited. The Commissioner has considered the remaining information and concluded that sections 31(1)(a) and 41(1) of the Act do not apply in this case. He has therefore requested the authority to disclose the requested information in its entirety to the complainant within 35 days of this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 31- Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 –Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50121687
Case Ref: FS50180689
Date: 10/09/2008
Public Authority: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
Summary: The complainant made 5 requests between April 2007 and June 2007 under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for information relating to the anti-depressant drug Seroxat. The MHRA deemed these requests vexatious in accordance with section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner considered these requests in the context and background in which they were made and has decided that the MHRA applied the Act correctly in refusing to comply with the requests under section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner has however found that the Trust breached section 17(5) of the Act as it did not state its reliance upon section 14(1) in relation to the requests labelled FOI 07/140 and FOI 07/142 within 20 working days of those requests being made.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50180689
Case Ref: FS50182912
Date: 09/09/2008
Public Authority: Charity Commission
Summary: The complainant requested information the Charity Commission held in relation to its inquiry into the Mariam Appeal. This request was refused on the basis that the information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of the exemptions contained at sections 27, 31, 32, 40, 41 and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that all of the requested information is exempt by virtue of the sections 32(2)(a) and 32(2)(b). However, in handling this request the Commissioner has also concluded that the public authority failed to provide a refusal notice compliant with sections 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c) and 17(3) of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 32 –Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 17 –Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50182912
Case Ref: FS50169317
Date: 08/09/2008
Public Authority: The Department for Work and Pensions
Summary: The complainant made a request for information to the Department for Work and Pensions (the ”DWP”) for the number of Parliamentary Questions (“PQs”) for Written Answer that had been colour coded red under a ”traffic light” system for colour coding PQs. The complainant asked for the information to be broken down in respect of one specific MP and collectively for other MPs. The DWP refused the request stating that the information held was exempt under section 35(1) (d) of the Act. After investigating the case, the Information Commissioner finds that the first element of the request should properly have been treated as a subject access request within the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner has weighed up the public interest arguments for and against disclosure under section 35(1) (d) of the Act applied by the DWP and finds that the balance of the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of the information. He therefore requires the DWP to disclose to the complainant the information which was the subject of the second element of his request. The Commissioner also finds that DWP, breached the requirements of sections 1(1) (b), 10(1) and 17(1).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10- Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint partially Upheld, FOI 35- Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50169317
Case Ref: FS50130697
Date: 04/09/2008
Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
Summary: The complainant made over forty requests for information from the FSA regarding Halifax PLC and Halifax Insurance Ireland Limited. The FSA responded to most of the questions but initially refused to answer three of the requests under sections 21, 31, 43 and 44. During the course of the investigation the FSA explained that it was now seeking to withhold the information under section 12 as to locate and retrieve the information would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the FSA were correct to rely on section 12 to withhold the information, however in failing to inform the complainant of its reliance on this exemption in the refusal notice the FSA breached the requirements of section 17(5) of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 13 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50130697
Case Ref: FS50154310
Date: 02/09/2008
Public Authority: Bridgnorth District Council
Summary: The complainant requested a number of items relating to the maintenance of a septic tank serving his property and maintained by Bridgnorth District Council (the “Council”). The Council refused the request and cited the exemption under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) that the appropriate limit would be exceeded if the Council was to respond to the requests. The Commissioner decided that the information requested at eight points of the request constitutes environmental information and those points should therefore be dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the “EIR”). The Commissioner upheld the exception under regulation 12(4)(b) that the request covered by the EIR is manifestly unreasonable. He also found that the Council was entitled to apply section 12 of the Act to the entire request and did not need to respond to the request under the Act, but that the Council should have confirmed or denied what information is held in accordance with section 1(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should offer advice and assistance to the complainant as to how to narrow his request under the EIR so that it is no longer manifestly unreasonable, in accordance with regulation 9 of the EIR and the Code of Practice issued under regulation 16.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(4)(b) – Complaint Not Upheld, EIR 12 – Complaint Not Upheld, EIR 14(3) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 9(1) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 1(1)(a) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50154310
Case Ref: FS50098388
Date: 01/09/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for drafts of the Iraq dossier from 11 to 16 September 2002 which were circulated to Joint Intelligence Committee members, a covering note with redactions removed, and any comments on the drafts made by the Defence Intelligence Staff or anyone else. The public authority decided that some of the information was not held, and the remainder was exempt under sections 27(1) and/or 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). Following a complaint to the Commissioner, it added that the withheld information was also exempt under section 24(1). The Commissioner decided that, in failing to specify in its refusal notice all of the exemptions which applied to each element of the requested information, the public authority breached section 17(1)(b). The Commissioner also decided that some of the withheld information should be released on the grounds that it was not exempt under sections 24(1) and although exempt under 36(2)(b)(ii) the balance of the public interest favoured disclosure. The public authority had therefore breached section 1(1)(b) in failing to disclose this information, and in addition section 10(1) in failing to disclose it within the statutory time limit. In applying the section 36(2)(b)(ii) exemption without having first obtained a valid qualified person’s opinion the Cabinet Office also failed to comply with the requirements of section 36(2). Finally, the Commissioner decided that the public authority failed to comply with its duty under section 10(1) to confirm or deny within 20 working days whether it held the requested information, and also breached section 17(1) by failing to provide the details required by that section within 20 working days. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 24(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36(2) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50098388
Case Ref: FS50134653
Date: 01/09/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for details, including the identities and/or Departments, of those who had commented on the drafting of thedossier on ‘Iraq’s Programme for Weapons of Mass Destruction’ between 11 and 16 September, other than those already in the public domain or submitted by the Defence Intelligence Staff. The public authority withheld the information, citing the exemptions contained in section 36(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). During the Commissioner’s investigation it applied a further exemption, section 24(1). The Commissioner decided that, because the complainant had made another freedom of information request to the public authority for any comments made on the dossier, this subsumed the request in the current case, and it was not therefore necessary to decide whether the exemptions had been properly applied in this case. However, the Commissioner decided that the public authority had delayed in issuing its refusal notice and therefore failed to comply with its duty under section 10(1) to confirm or deny within 20 working days whether it held the requested information, and also breached section 17(1) by failing to provide the details required by that section within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50134653
Case Ref: FS50151297
Date: 01/09/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information about an incident in which Nyman Levin, the Head of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, allegedly ‘dropped dead in the Cabinet Office in 1965’, and specifically for (a) any report about the death, and details of the meeting he was attending, and (b) details of warnings which had been issued to Nyman Levin, and relevant security investigations into him and others. The public authority stated that it did not hold any information relating to the first part of the request; in relation to the second part it refused to confirm or deny whether it held the information, citing section 23(5) and 24(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that the public authority had addressed the first part of the request properly; however, in respect of the second part of the request it had breachedsection 1(1)(a) by failing to notify the complainant in writing whether it held information of the description specified in the request, and the Commissioner requires it now to provide the complainant with that confirmation or denial. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1)(a) – Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50151297