http://www.ico.gov.uk/RSSFeeds/DecisionNotices.aspx Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:50:47 GMT Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:47:02 GMT en Copyright 2006 Information Commissioner's Office Sitecore CMS: http://www.sitecore.net. Sitecore RSS module: Sitecore.Modules.RSS, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null 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. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50186715.pdf Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:47:02 GMT 87bba883-4482-4821-bdb5-c38b58f3e1d9 e 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. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50174489.pdf Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:38:39 GMT 821d7e14-2673-4399-b97b-651d8cd5044d 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). http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50169012.pdf Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:34:35 GMT 47aa620a-0da1-4f34-80a1-91599c36186d 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. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50158413.pdf Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:31:21 GMT 9c496771-1b69-4bce-bf60-be442132ee7b 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. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50147679.pdf Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:26:00 GMT 80f8fe80-824a-4d42-aab6-80966c4609ac 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. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50122058.pdf Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:17:45 GMT 52dde9ee-d2f6-47cb-8c9f-c009e6f810d9 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. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50093000.pdf Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:53:59 GMT 91623c3b-1c54-4801-a03a-168ec60f57c0 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. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50074593.pdf Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:36:03 GMT 62fd18d2-2394-4b9e-8bbc-94a201532187 The complainants requested the Council to release the names and contact details of all staff at the Council, including the department in which they work and their head of department. The Council considered the request and refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 31, 36 and 40 of the Act. The Commissioner first considered the Council’s application of section 36 of the Act. He concluded that the disclosure of the names and contact details of all staff would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. He also concluded that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. In respect of the department in which each member of staff works, the Commissioner reached the decision that this information becomes meaningless without the name of each staff member to which it relates. As he concluded that the names of staff should not be disclosed, he decided not to consider this aspect of the complainants’ request any further. Regarding the name of head of each department, the Commissioner decided that section 31 of the Act did not apply. Concerning the Council’s application of section 40, the Commissioner concluded that the name of head of each department is personal data. However, he reached the view that disclosure would not contravene the Data Protection Act and therefore that this information should be released to the complainants within 35 days of this Notice. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50125204.pdf Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:26:53 GMT 2760b30e-e617-4ffb-92f9-e358e82897a4 The complainant requested the Council to release a list of its investigation files relating to reported planning infringements in the borough prior to any enforcement action being authorised for the three month period preceding his request. The council refused the complainant’s request citing regulations 13 and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner has considered the requested information and the Council’s application of these exceptions. In respect of those investigations where the alleged planning breach relates to properties owned by individuals and sole traders, the Commissioner has concluded that this information is exempt from disclosure under regulation 13 of the EIR. For those remaining cases where the alleged planning infringement relates to a company, the Commissioner has considered the Council’s application of regulation 12(5)(b) and concluded that this exception is not engaged. The Commissioner has therefore ordered the Council to release this information to the complainant within 35 days of this Notice. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fer_0145824.pdf Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:05:05 GMT 9baaa72d-95e0-4bc5-861c-2f6a124bd515 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. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50177327.pdf Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:28:36 GMT 8b61a597-6aeb-4441-ac69-02a6714c51c5 The complainant requested documents relating to internal communications held by the Home Office relating to his company’s use of the Freedom of Information Act. The Home Office refused to disclose this information under section 36 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that section 36 is engaged; however the Commissioner finds that the public interest favours disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information within 35 calendar days of this notice. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50174491.pdf Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:47:37 GMT 32f3995e-b1f9-408d-bbb9-bba94f909d8e The complainant requested the number of staff in certain categories engaged to work on Eastenders, the annual staff costs of Eastenders and the range of contract values. The BBC provided to the complainant the number of staff engaged but refused to provide the remaining information on the basis that it was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature. During the course of the investigation the BBC also sought to rely on exemptions under the Act to withhold the information. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50115188.pdf Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:30:47 GMT 259a5403-a882-4b36-816c-d6ebb73ee6c8 The complainant made a request for the work history of a General Practitioner (GP) (who, for the purposes of the Act is considered to be a public authority in his own right in respect of information relating to the provision of general medical services). The public authority withheld the information requested on the basis of the exemption contained in section 40(2). The Commissioner considered the case and upheld the public authority’s reliance on section 40(2). However the Commissioner found the public authority had breached section 17(1)(b) of the Act. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50146538.pdf Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:23:42 GMT 2b14fda6-c5fa-4c67-945b-97e0d7ae5f42 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. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50141388.pdf Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:49:07 GMT b4cc2aad-4d4f-4ea2-b694-80854c9ec66c 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. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50130305.pdf Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:48:48 GMT 7c54c907-7c75-443c-a865-2cdc237c12e1 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. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50124423.pdf Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:23:20 GMT de155792-70e0-437a-a905-71d5ed1f23de 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. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50094496.pdf Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:07:40 GMT 6640c62e-86c2-4bd8-9bc5-a88d972c18d7 http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/tools_and_resources/decision_notices/2008_07.aspx Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:33:18 GMT a2ec2f19-5126-427b-8c44-7fba654a49c0 The complainant made a request to The Pension Service for advice referenced in earlier correspondence to him from the authority. The Pension Service explained to the complainant that it did not hold a copy of the advice but that the advice was held by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, The Pension Service suggested the complainant redirect his request. The Commissioner has investigated and is satisfied that The Pension Service does not hold a copy of the advice. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50145475.pdf Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:11:36 GMT f3b91c64-3b34-455c-90dc-561fec40638f The complainant asked for a list of requests made to the Cabinet Office, showing in each instance, the date of the Cabinet Office’s response and whether the request resulted in full, partial or non disclosure of information. The Cabinet Office responded that the information was not held. The Cabinet Office has argued that the process of gathering the information requested into a list constitutes information “creation”, an activity which the Act does not require public authorities to undertake. The Commissioner does not accept this view and has found that information falling within the scope of the request was held by the Cabinet Office. In failing to communicate this the Cabinet Office breached section 1(1) of the Act. The Commissioner instructed the Cabinet Office to provide the complainant with the requested information or, should they estimate that to do so would exceed the “appropriate limit” as defined in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, provide the complaint with an indication of what information can be provided within the appropriate limit to assist the complainant in reframing the request so that it might be accommodated within the appropriate limit. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50198141.pdf Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:20:38 GMT 4e57eae7-f553-4160-a82f-94af9eb487f7 The complainant asked for a list of documents disclosed by the Cabinet Office under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the "Act") and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the “EIR”) and the dates of their disclosure. The Cabinet Office responded that the information is not held. The Commissioner’s investigation found that, whilst constituent elements of the information requested are held by the Cabinet Office, they are not held in the form of a consolidated list. The Cabinet Office has argued that the process of gathering the information requested into a list constitutes information “creation”, an activity which the Act does not require public authorities to undertake. The Commissioner does not accept this view and has found that information falling within the scope of the request was held by the Cabinet Office. The Commissioner instructed the Cabinet Office to provide the complainant with the requested information or, should they estimate that to do so would exceed the “appropriate limit” as defined in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, provide the complaint with an indication of what information can be provided within the appropriate limit, to assist the complainant in reframing the request so that it might be accommodated within the appropriate limit. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50155552.pdf Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:15:51 GMT 0c9019cf-f0b1-4cf1-94cc-232fb4f1d236 The complainant wrote to the Cabinet Office to request records of exchanges between Tony Blair and Rupert Murdoch. The Cabinet Office responded to the request by stating that the information could not be disclosed since the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit of £600. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office altered its position to say that it no longer believed that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. Instead, it subsequently disclosed some of the information to the complainant but withheld the remainder under section 35 (Formulation of Government Policy), section 40 (Personal Information), section 41 (Information Provided in Confidence) and section 43 (Commercial Interests). Having analysed the withheld information, the Commissioner has decided that all the remaining information should be disclosed to the complainant apart from two sentences within a specified document which he accepts is exempt under section 41. He has also decided that the Cabinet Office breached several procedural provisions of the Act in its handling of the request. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50153967.pdf Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:11:20 GMT 6d42d5eb-c84f-4944-a92b-397abd32bf88 The complainant requested information concerning the council’s submission of documents relating to a complaint of maladministration that she had made to the Local Government Ombudsman. Items of the requested information were variously withheld under s43 (commercial interests), s21 (information accessible by other means), s30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities), s31 (law enforcement), s40 (personal information) and s41 (information provided in confidence). The complainant withdrew her complaint in respect of one item. One item was found to be environmental information, was found to be already publicly available and therefore Regulation 6 of the Regulations applied. With regard to the remaining item the Commissioner decided that the exemptions were incorrectly applied apart from some information which was exempt under s40(1) of the Act. The Commissioner found that the council failed to comply with s1 and s17 of the Act and failed to conform with the s45 Access Code of Practice. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50144199.pdf Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:57:06 GMT 4e0dd7d0-1b65-4ac1-8002-8e6e930061b8 The complainant requested information relating to the salaries of senior staff at the public authority. The public authority made limited disclosures within the scope of this request but withheld certain information which would identify individuals’ salaries. It argued that disclosure would be unfair and in contravention of the first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998. As such it was exempt under Section 40(2) of the Act. It argued that the information was also exempt under Sections 41 and 43 of the Act. The Commissioner has decided that all the withheld information is exempt under Section 40(2) of the Act. He has therefore not considered whether the other exemptions cited are also applicable. However, the Commissioner has found that the public authority failed to comply with a number of its procedural obligations under section 17 of the Act. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50142539.pdf Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:51:01 GMT 672ffcb4-3ee3-4534-a883-b6104c7c3d87 The Complainant requested a section of an internal audit report of a contract between the council and a private company for the purposes of highway maintenance. The council refused the request claiming that it engaged the exemptions of the Act in section 43 (commercial prejudice) and section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner's decision is that section 43 does not apply to the information. He has also decided that although section 36 is applicable, the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50130129.pdf Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:04 GMT 01f54204-3fb1-4200-af86-45c928bfd4b4 The complainant requested information held by the UKAEA in connection with its meetings with its PR firm. UKAEA refused to disclose the information held stating it was exempt under section 40, 41 and 43 of the Act. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation UKAEA disclosed the information withheld under sections 40 and 43 but continued to withhold some information under section 41. The Commissioner investigated the application of section 41 and has found that the exemption is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 41 within 35 calendar days of this notice. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50123005.pdf Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:42:13 GMT 0d77dcfb-a01e-4484-a1d4-c0f5ee1e6b6d The complainant requested from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport various aspects of information relating to the declarations of interests made under the Ministerial Code by Ministers within the Department. The Department supplied the complainant with much of the information it held in relation to the request but withheld the remainder under section 41 of the Act (Information provided in confidence) and section 43 (Commercial interests). By the time of his investigation, the Department no longer wished to rely upon section 43 to withhold the information to which that exemption was applied and had supplied this information to the complainant. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that the remaining withheld information is exempt under section 41. In its handling of the complainant’s request, the Commissioner found that the Department failed to respond within the statutory time limit. In this case, the failure constituted a breach of sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Act (‘Time for compliance with request’ and ‘Refusal of request’). http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50111328.pdf Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:17:32 GMT 57d07eb5-491b-4476-8a3a-c89c42c55c81 The complainant requested information relating to indeterminate sentences. The public authority replied that section 35 (formulation of government policy) 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 three separate occasions before the complainant made a valid compliant to the Commissioner. The Commissioner finds a delay of over six months in carrying out a public interest determination to be a breach of section 17(3). The public authority also failed to cite a valid exemption under the Act because it did not cite the relevant subsection and therefore breached section 17(1)(b) of the Act. The public authority is required to issue a notice explaining which exemption is engaged and why, where it believes the balance of the public interest lies and its reasoning for this. 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. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50200667.pdf Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:14:19 GMT be430802-eeac-47bb-a12c-e5458a4805fe The complainant requested the Council to release a copy of the tendering document submitted by the contractor awarded the contract to carry out the repairs, maintenance and work at Mid Suffolk Leisure Centre for compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act. The Council responded informing the complainant that it was willing to make a redacted version of the document available for his inspection. However, it advised the complainant that it was unwilling to disclose the financial details submitted by the contractor (mainly the price quoted for each task to be undertaken) as it considered this information was exempt from disclosure under section 43 of the Act. The Commissioner considered the requested information and concluded that section 43(2) of the Act is not engaged. He has therefore requested the Council to disclose the requested information within 35 days of this Notice. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50131138.pdf Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:19:33 GMT 0f713e80-b7be-4e38-af61-89147a0fecde