Case Ref: FS50088016
Date: 27/11/2008
Public Authority: Department for International Development
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the winning tender proposal for a particular consultancy post along with details of the scores awarded to all of the tenders which the Department for International Development (‘DFID’) received. While DFID provided the complainant with the overall score awarded to the winning tender and the average score awarded to his tender (the complainant’s tender was unsuccessful), DFID refused to disclose the winning tender proposal on the basis of sections 40(2) (personal data) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of the Act and also refused to disclose a detailed breakdown of the scores awarded to the tenders on the basis of section 43(2). The Commissioner has concluded that the winning tender is not exempt on the basis of section 43(2) of the Act and although some of the information contained in the winning tender is exempt on the basis of section 40(2) of the Act, a significant proportion of this information is not. The Commissioner has therefore ordered DFID to disclose this information to the complainant. With regard to the detailed score sheets for each tender, the Commissioner has concluded that the score sheets are the personal data of each individual who submitted a tender. Therefore, the Commissioner has decided that the score sheets held by DFID in relation to the complainant’s tender are exempt on the basis of section 40(1). The Commissioner has also concluded that disclosure of the winning tenderer’s score cards would be unfair is therefore exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50088016
Case Ref: FS50146833
Date: 26/11/2008
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary: The complainant requested the amount the BBC gave away in prize money on game shows in 2005 and 2006. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis that it was not a public authority in relation to this request because the information was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature within the meaning set out in Schedule 1 of the Act. Having considered the purposes for which this information is held, the Commissioner has concluded that the requested information was not held for the dominant purposes of journalism, art or literature and therefore the request falls within the scope of the Act. However, the Commissioner has concluded that to fulfil the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit and therefore the BBC does not have an obligation to respond to the request because the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that in handling this request the BBC breached sections 1(1)(a) and 17(5).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50146833
Case Ref: FS50143101
Date: 25/11/2008
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant made a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (the ‘FCO’) concerning a Governor’s book that was signed by those loyal to Britain at the time of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Rhodesia in 1965. The FCO conducted a search and concluded that it did not hold this information. The Commissioner has investigated the FCO’s handling of the request and is satisfied that the FCO did comply with the requirements of the Act. The Commissioner does not therefore require the FCO to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50143101
Case Ref: FS50145238
Date: 25/11/2008
Public Authority: NOMS
Summary: The complainants requested information about the awarding of a contract for the provision of healthcare at HMP The Mount. The public authority initially refused to disclose any information as it believed this information to be exempt by virtue of section 21(1). At internal review stage the public authority located additional information falling within the scope of the request. The majority of this information was disclosed, with the remainder withheld under section 36(2)(b)(ii). The information previously withheld under section 21(1) was also disclosed at that stage. The Commissioner finds that section 36(2)(b)(ii) was applied correctly to the majority of this information. In relation to the remainder of this information, the Commissioner concludes that the opinion of the qualified person that disclosure would result in inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views is not reasonable and the public authority is required to disclose this information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint partly upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50145238
Case Ref: FS50164048
Date: 25/11/2008
Public Authority: Office for National Statistics
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Office for National Statistics (the ‘ONS’) relating to the 1921 census return. The ONS withheld the requested information, relying on the exemptions under sections 44(1)(a) and 22(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act (the ‘Act’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the ONS has correctly applied the section 44(1)(a) exemption. The Commissioner does not therefore require the ONS to take any steps in relation to this request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50164048
Case Ref: FS50213881
Date: 25/11/2008
Public Authority: Office for National Statistics
Summary:The complainant requested information from the Office for National Statistics (the ‘ONS’) relating to the 1921 census return. The ONS withheld the requested information, relying on the exemptions under sections 44(1)(a) and 22(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act (the ‘Act’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the ONS has correctly applied the section 44(1)(a) exemption. The Commissioner does not therefore require the ONS to take any steps in relation to this request. However the Commissioner finds that the ONS did not comply with section 1(1) in that it failed to respond to the request within the statutory timescale.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld,FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50213881
Case Ref: FS50178913
Date: 24/11/2008
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant requested copies of all information the then Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe received which cast doubt on the evidence given by Carmen Proetta in the television programme ‘Death on the Rock’ which was broadcast in April 1988. This programme investigated the events surrounding the shooting of three IRA members by the SAS in Gibraltar in March 1988 and in the programme Mrs Proetta claimed she had witnessed the shooting and gave her account of the actions of the SAS. Although the Foreign and Commonwealth Office confirmed to the complainant that it held information falling within the scope of his request, it refused to disclose this information because it considered it to be exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 40(2) and 40(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act). The Commissioner has reviewed the withheld information and has established that it constitutes the sensitive personal data of Mrs Proetta and as none of the conditions in Schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act can be met, disclosure would breach sections 40(2) and 40(3) of the FOI Act. However, in handling this request the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO breached section 17(1) by failing to provide a refusal notice within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50178913
Case Ref: FS50198379
Date: 24/11/2008
Public Authority: Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (the “Trust”) for information relating to how many cases involving the Kent & Sussex Hospital were referred to the North West Kent Coroner’s office between April 2004 and September 2006 and the proportion of those cases that were actually found against the hospital. The Trust ultimately refused the complainant’s request as to provide the information would exceed the cost limit as set out by section 12 of the Act. Upon intervention by the Commissioner the Trust was able to provide some of the requested information up to the £450 cost limit. The Commissioner upheld the Trust’s refusal to provide any further information as it would exceed the cost limit as set out by section 12 of the Act. The Commissioner does however consider that the Trust failed under section 16(1) of the Act to provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance as to what information it would be able to provide to the complainant prior to the Commissioner’s intervention. Further more as the Trust did not state its reliance upon section 12 with the time limit, the Commissioner also considers that the Trust breached section 17(5) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50198379
Case Ref: FS50169734
Date: 24/11/2008
Public Authority: Nursing and Midwifery Council
Summary: The complainant requested information which, if held, would have included statements that had been provided by named nurses to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (the “NMC”) during its investigation of fitness to practise complaints. The public authority responded in accordance with the provision of section 1(1)(a) (it confirmed or denied it held the information requested). After considering the case, the Commissioner’s decision is 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) because, in responding to the request, it had to disclose information which constitutes personal data of the named nurses. 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 FS50169734
Case Ref: FS50111678
Date: 17/11/2008
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Cabinet Office to request the disclosure of all correspondence between the then Prime Minister and his former strategy adviser Lord Birt between 1 November 2004 and 1 April 2005 together with a schedule of any such documents held. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose this information relying initially upon the exemption under section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act (Formulation of government policy). Upon internal review, the Cabinet Office upheld its decision placing reliance additionally upon the exemption under section 36 of the Act (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner upheld the decision of the Cabinet Office on the basis of the exemptions cited under sections 35 and 36 of the Act. However, he has concluded that the Cabinet Office should have disclosed the existence (but not the details) of Lord Birt’s informal role in senior staff appointments. The Commissioner has also found that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) of the Act (refusal notice) by not specifying its reliance upon section 36 in the original refusal notice issued to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint partly upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint partly upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50111678
Case Ref: FS50141015
Date: 17/11/2008
Public Authority: Department for Work and Pensions
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) as to whether there were any compliments or complaints recorded about a doctor employed by a third party. The DWP initially stated that it held no such information and later added that even if it were held by the third party on their behalf it would be exempt from disclosure by section 40(5) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that due to the contractual relationship between the DWP and the third party any relevant “complaints” (but not “compliment”) information held by the third party, if it existed, would be held by them on behalf of the DWP, by operation of section 3(2) of the Act. However, in accordance with section 40(5) of the Act, the DWP was correct to neither confirm nor deny the existence of the requested information as to do so would contravene data protection principles, but it was in breach of section 1(1)(a) in that it failed to inform the complainant of that.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50141015
Case Ref: FER0112249
Date: 12/11/2008
Public Authority: Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Summary: The complainant requested that the Rural Payments Agency disclose information regarding the distribution of subsidies under the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy. The RPA ultimately relied on the exemption provided by regulation 13 of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner found that the legitimate interest in the processing of the third party data outweighed the legitimate interests of the data subjects. The Commissioner therefore upheld the complainant’s complaint and directed that the requested information be released.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 13(1) – Complaint upheld, EIR 13(2)(a) – Complaint upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0112249
Case Ref: FS50144991
Date: 10/11/2008
Public Authority: Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a report detailing the findings of an audit carried out by the council on the Rochdale Centre of Diversity (the ‘RCD’), a charitable organisation based in Rochdale. The council carried out the audit due to allegations it received that funds were being mismanaged at the RCD. The council refused the complainant’s request on the basis that the exemptions in sections 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) and 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 30 and 36 of the Act do not apply. However he has decided that section 40 (personal data) does apply to the personal information of junior employees of the charity. The personal data of senior employees of the RCD is not exempt under section 40 other than a few sections which impact directly upon the private (as opposed to the public) lives of those individuals.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50144991
Case Ref: FS50126264
Date: 03/11/2008
Public Authority: Student Loans Company Limited
Summary: The complainant made a request to the Student Loans Company Ltd (the “SLC”) for a copy of the “customer service guide” for employees of the Smith Lawson & Company collection team. The complainant qualified the initial request by stating that it was a request for any documents, guides or customer service policies that were used by these staff. The SLC initially informed the complainant that it did not hold any information which fell under the scope of his request. After the complainant sought an internal review the SLC confirmed that it did hold some material that fell within the scope of his request, but withheld this information under section 43(2). After investigating this complaint the Commissioner decided that the exemption was not engaged, and as such the requested information should be disclosed. Therefore the Commissioner found that the SLC had acted in breach of section 1(1)(b) in that it had wrongly relied upon section 43(2) to withhold this information. The Commissioner also found that the SLC had not met the requirements of section 10(1).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50126264