Case Ref: FS50157445
Date: 30/10/2008
Public Authority: The Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary
Summary: The complainant made a request for seven pieces of information relating to the Constabulary’s coat of arms and logo, the use of these; its policies regarding the recording of conversations; and for information about the Constabulary’s internet domain and service provider. The request was made during an on-going dispute between the complainant and Constabulary. During the course of the dispute members of the Constabulary were the subjects of several complaints. The complainant also made a significant number of information requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and the Data Protection Act. The Constabulary refused the complainant’s request under section 14 of the Act on the grounds that it was vexatious. It was drawn to this conclusion by the complainant’s stated intent to use the requested information to assist him in setting up a website publicising his grievances. The Commissioner has examined the complainant’s previous contact with the Constabulary. He considers that this request, together with the history of complaints and other information requests, constitutes a significant burden to the Constabulary. He also considers that the intent behind the request would have the effect of harassing the Constabulary. The Commissioner has concluded that the Constabulary’s application of section 14 was appropriate and does not uphold the complaint.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50157445
Case Ref: FS50180221
Date: 30/10/2008
Public Authority: Imperial College London
Summary: The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the Imperial College London (the “college”) for information relating to its admissions guidelines. After considering the case the Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested is not held by the college. The Commissioner considers that the request was not however dealt with in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the Act as the college did not clearly deny that any further information was held. Furthermore, the Commissioner considers that section 10(1) of the Act was breached as the college did not comply with section 1(1)(a) within 20 working days of the request
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Compliant Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50180221
Case Ref: FS50117257
Date: 30/10/2008
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: On the 3 October 2005 the complainant requested information in relation to action taken by the Department of Constitutional Affairs now the Ministry of Justice (‘MOJ’) regarding judicial misconduct. The Ministry of Justice initially refused the information but did not give the complainant a reason under the Freedom of information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). They later released some information requested by the complainant but refused the remainder under section 12 (1) of the Act. The Commissioner concluded that the Ministry of Justice has breached section 10 (1), section 17 (5) and section 17 (7) in relation to their handling of this case, but have correctly applied section 12 (1) to the remaining information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10- Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50117257
Case Ref: FS50156540
Date: 27/10/2008
Public Authority: Department for Children, Schools and Families
Summary: The complainant requested copies of correspondence to and from the (then) Department for Education and Skills (DFES) (now the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF)) concerning correspondence with him. The public authority provided some information, but withheld other information citing the exemption in section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner finds that the public authority was not obliged to comply with section 1(1) of the Act on the basis of the exemption contained at section 40(1) and (5). The Commissioner also found that the public authority had breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act by late disclosure of some of the requested information and by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days of receiving the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50156540
Case Ref: FS50169313
Date: 23/10/2008
Public Authority: The British Museum
Summary: The complaint submitted two requests to the British Museum, the first focusing on the ‘Parthenon Marbles’ and the second on the ‘Terracotta Army’. The British Museum provided some information in relation to these requests but relied on the exemptions contained at sections 22, 31, 36 and 43 of the Act to withhold the remainder of the information. With the exception of the application of section 22, the complainant asked the Commissioner to consider whether these exemptions had been applied correctly. With regard to the information relating to the first request the Commissioner has concluded that although three letters written by the Museum’s Director are exempt on the basis of section 36, the public interest favours withholding only two of these letters. With to the second request, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the British Museum suggested that it was now relying on section 12 of the Act to refuse to answer part of this request. The Commissioner has concluded that section 12 can be correctly relied upon and that some of the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 36 and 43 and that the public interest favours withholding this information. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that in respect of the remainder of the information covered by request two the exemptions contained at sections 31 and 43 of the Act are not engaged. Furthermore, the Commissioner has concluded that British Museum breached section 17(1)(b) by failing to state in its refusal notice the specific sub-sections of the exemptions it was relying on to refuse the complainant’s request as well as breaching all the requirements of section 17(5) by failing to provide a refusal notice citing section 12.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint partially Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially Upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50169313
Case Ref: FS50140994
Date: 23/10/2008
Public Authority: The Chief Officer of Staffordshire Police
Summary: The complainant requested copies of any evidence, which had not already been passed to her, in connection with an alleged speeding offence. This request ultimately became confined to the provision of a video tape which would show the recording of her alleged offence and all other motorists or pedestrians captured on the same footage. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 30(1)(a)(i) was appropriately applied and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He has not therefore considered the exemption at 40(2). The Commissioner also found that the public authority failed to respond to two earlier iterations of the request in breach of section 1(1). However he did not order any steps in relation to those requests as the decision notice deals with an identical request which was processed by the public authority under the Act. In relation to that request the Commissioner has found that the public authority breached sections 17(1)(b) and 17(3)(b). The latter breach was remedied at internal review and in view of the content of this decision notice the Commissioner has not ordered any remedial steps in relation to the section 17 breaches.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17(3)(b) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 30(1)(a)(i) – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50140994
Case Ref: FS50159087
Date: 23/10/2008
Public Authority: The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a draft purchase order relating to the compulsory purchase of his father’s land. The public authority wrote to the complainant requesting further information in order to determine if the information was held. Following receipt of this further information from the complainant the public authority wrote to the complainant confirming that the information requested was not held. The Commissioner has investigated and has determined that the requested information if held, would be environmental information and therefore the request should have been dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner found that in accordance with regulation 3, the requested information is not held. However, the Commissioner found that BERR breached the requirements of regulation 10(1), 14(1), (2), (3) and (5) and 9(2).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 3(2) – Complaint Not Upheld, EIR 9(2) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14(1) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14(2) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14(3) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14(5) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50159087
Case Ref: FS50146033
Date: 23/10/2008
Public Authority: Vehicle & Operator Services Agency
Summary: The complainant requested the full details of 22 non-safety recalls which were recorded on the public authority’s database in 2006. The public authority withheld the information by virtue of the exemptions contained in sections 41 and 43(2) of the Act. After considering the case, the Commissioner found that neither of the exemptions were engaged and ordered the public authority to disclose the requested information. He also found the public authority in breach of sections 1(1)(b), 17(1) and 17(3) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI – 42 Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50146033
Case Ref: FS50178633
Date: 22/10/2008
Public Authority: General Medical Council
Summary: The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the General Medical Council (the “GMC”) for “all correspondence between the GMC, [named doctor] and his employers”. The GMC confirmed or denied whether it held that information under section 1(1)(a) of the Act. After considering the case, the Commissioner finds that the GMC was not obliged to respond under section 1(1) (a) by virtue of the provisions of section 40(5)(b)(i). This is because in responding to the request it has disclosed information which constitutes the personal data of the named doctor. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any further steps in relation to the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50178633
Case Ref: FS50181641
Date: 22/10/2008
Public Authority: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’)
Summary: The complainant requested copies of the information HMRC holds in relation to the civil action it instigated against KPMG concerning its administration of Leeds United, specifically the information formally served into the court. Although HMRC confirmed to the complainant that it held this information, it considered it to be exempt from disclosure 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 requested information is exempt on the basis of section 44(1)(a). However, the Commissioner has concluded that HMRC breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with a refusal notice within 20 working days of his request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17- Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50181641
Case Ref: FS50202967
Date: 22/10/2008
Public Authority: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’)
Summary: The complainant requested a number of pieces of information from HMRC about a particular trust and a particular company. HMRC refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 44(2) of the Act and its interaction with section 44(1)(a) of the Act and sections 18(1) and 23(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. The Commissioner has concluded that HMRC was correct to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner has concluded that by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days HMRC breached section 17(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 - Not Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50202967
Case Ref: FS50163364
Date: 21/10/2008
Public Authority: Imperial College London
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a document which was used as an informal guide by some of the public authority’s staff to assist with decisions related to the recognition of overseas qualifications when recruiting students The public authority refused to disclose the document on the basis of the exemption contained in section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the Act. The Commissioner determined that section 43(2) was not applicable and ordered that the withheld information be disclosed to the complainant. He also found the public authority in breach of sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50163364
Case Ref: FS50154106
Date: 16/10/2008
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant requested information from the BBC regarding the number of TV detection devices, how often they are deployed and their technical specification. The BBC refused to disclose the information under Section 31(1) (a) (b) (d) and (g) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the information is exempt under section 31(1) (a) (b) and (g) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50154106
Case Ref: FS50180545
Date: 15/10/2008
Public Authority: The National Audit Office
Summary: The complainant submitted a series of requests to the National Audit Office (NAO) which were mainly focused on the origins of various figures contained in a value for money report into stroke care produced by the NAO. The complainant alleged that the NAO failed to respond to a number of these requests within 20 working days and that not all of the information falling within the scope of his requests was disclosed. The Commissioner has concluded that the NAO did not in fact hold any further information covered by the scope of most, but not all, of the requests. With regard the information that the Commissioner has established the NAO does hold but did not initially disclose to the complainant, the Commissioner has concluded that the NAO breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act by failing to disclose this information within 20 working days of receiving the requests. With regard to the requests where the Commissioner has concluded that the NAO does not hold any information, the NAO breached section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Act by failing to confirm or deny within 20 working days whether it held the information requested. During the course of this investigation the NAO argued that the further information which had been identified (a set of internal memos) was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 33. The Commissioner does not accept that section 33 is engaged in respect of the internal memos; however, during the closing stages of the Commissioner’s investigation the NAO provided this information to the complainant. In failing to provide the complainant with this information within 20 workings, the NAO committed a further breach of sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act.The public authority also failed to comply with section 17(1) by failing to provide a refusal notice citing section 33.
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.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50180545
Case Ref: FS50180310
Date: 15/10/2008
Public Authority: Nursing and Midwifery Council
Summary: The complainant requested a statement that had been provided by a named nurse to the public authority. The public authority responded in accordance with the provisions of section 1(1)(a) (it confirmed or denied it held the information requested). After considering the case, the Commissioner finds that the public authority was excluded from its duty to respond to the request under section 1(1)(a) by virtue of the provisions of section 40(5)(b)(i) (exclusion from the duty to confirm or deny a public authority holds third party personal data) because in responding to the request, it had to disclose information which constitutes the personal data of the named nurse. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps in relation to the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50180310
Case Ref: FS50177136
Date: 14/10/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Cabinet Office (“the public authority”) to request information regarding a Cabinet Committee that was formed in order to consider data sharing within the public sector. The public authority provided the complainant with some information but refused to disclose the minutes of meetings of the committee under section 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner considered the complaint and found that section 35 applies and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The public authority also refused to disclose the names of junior civil servants who attended the Committee by relying on section 40(2) of the Act and the Commissioner found that the public authority also correctly withheld this information. However, the Commissioner found that in its handling of the complainant’s request the public authority breached sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1) and 17(1)(c). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld, and FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50177136
Case Ref: FS50127256
Date: 14/10/2008
Public Authority: Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service
Summary: The complainant requested information about two investigations carried out by the public authority. In connection with the first of these, a 1970s fraud case, the Commissioner finds that the public authority is correct in stating that this information is not held, but that it breached section 1(1)(a) when earlier incorrectly suggesting that this information was held. In connection with the second of these, a 1980s murder investigation, the Commissioner finds that the public authority has applied the exemption provided by section 30(1) correctly. The Commissioner has also found that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Act in its handling of the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 – Compliant Partially Upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Compliant Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50127256
Case Ref: FER0152607
Date: 08/10/2008
Public Authority: Belfast Improved Housing Association
Summary: The complainant made a request to Belfast Improved Housing Association (“BIH”) under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) on 31 May 2006 for access to all documents held and produced by BIH in relation to the development of sites at Crumlin Road Methodist Church and 237-247 Tennent Street. BIH did not provide the information as it stated that Housing Associations were not public authorities for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that BIH is a public authority within the meaning of Regulation 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d)(i) of the EIR. This Decision Notice requires BIH to either provide the complainant with the requested information or to issue a formal refusal notice, stating which exceptions (if any) under the EIR it believes to be applicable.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 2(2)(c) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 2(2)(d)(i) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0152607
Case Ref: FS50108683
Date: 8/10/2008
Public Authority: Commission for Social Care Inspection
Summary: The complainant asked the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) for information held about the Cheltenham Children’s Home in relation to decisions made to authorise the broadcast of parts of a CSCI report, and the relevant CSCI policy and procedures. The Commissioner’s decision is that CSCI did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the Act. Under section 10 of the Act, CSCI should have responded within 20 working days of the request having been made. This it failed to do by a wide margin, a failure which merits criticism. However the Commissioner noted, and welcomed, the apology by CSCI and the steps taken to ensure that future requests for information are dealt with faster.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50108683
Case Ref: FS50168782
Date: 8/10/2008
Public Authority: Hampshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested details of the budget and operating costs of the council’s residential and nursing care homes. Some items of the requested information were supplied by the council but it withheld the operating costs by virtue of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the Act. The Commissioner decided that the exemption at section 43(2) was not engaged and ordered disclosure of the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43(2) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50168782
Case Ref: FER149772
Date: 08/10/2008
Public Authority: Wesley Housing Association Ltd
Summary: The complainant made a request to Wesley Housing Association (“Wesley”) under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) for access to all documents held and produced by Wesley in relation to the development of sites at Crumlin Road Methodist Church and 237-247 Tennent Street. Wesley did not provide the information as it stated that Housing Associations were not public authorities for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that Wesley is a public authority within the meaning of Regulation 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d)(i) of the EIR. This Decision Notice requires Wesley to either provide the complainant with the requested information or to issue a formal refusal notice, stating which exceptions (if any) under the EIR it believes to be applicable.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 2(2)(c) – Complaint Upheld, EIR 2(2)(d)(i) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER149772
Case Ref: FS50080369
Date: 02/10/2008
Public Authority: Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Summary: The complainant requested the names and addresses of respondents in Employment Tribunal applications. The public authority refused to disclose the information stating that it held the information on behalf of the Employment Tribunal and not in its own right. In the alternative the public authority relied on the exemption at section 36 of the Act to withhold the information. The Commissioner investigated and found that the information is held by the public authority in its own right and that the exemption at section 36 is engaged but the public interest in maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information. The Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to disclosure the information within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1(1)(a) – Complaint Upheld, FOI 1(1)(b) – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50080369