Case Ref: FS50093233
Date: 30/01/2007
Public Authority: New Forest District Council
Summary: The complainant requested information about a complaint concerning a potential breach of planning regulations on his property. The public authority released some of the information but refused to release the name and address of the informant on the basis that it was exempt under sections 30 and 40(2) of the Act. Having considered the relevant provisions of the Act and the submissions received from both parties, the Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority has validly withheld the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50093233
Case Ref: FS50082255
Date: 30/01/2007
Public Authority: National Portrait Gallery
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information about how much it had paid to an artist commissioned to make a video portrait of David Beckham, and who owned the work. The Gallery provided information about ownership but withheld other information, citing the exemptions contained in sections 21 and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The complainant objected to the withholding of that part of the information to which the Gallery had applied section 43, and after the Commissioner’s intervention the Gallery released that information. The Commissioner has decided that section 43 did not apply at the time of the original request both because the prejudice to the commercial interests of the Gallery was insufficient to engage the exemption and that (even if the exemption had been engaged) the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. He has also decided that the Gallery breached section 17(3) of the Act because its refusal notice failed to explain its application of the public interest test. However, since the information has now been released the Commissioner does not require it to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50082255
Case Ref: FS50110741
Date: 30/01/2007
Public Authority: West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive
Summary: The complainant submitted a number of requests to the public authority during the period January 2005 to November 2005 about the public authority’s financial relationship with four local bus companies. In November 2005 the public authority refused to answer any further requests on this issue from the complainant. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority were correct to refuse to answer the complainant’s latest request on the basis that it was vexatious, although the public authority failed to provide a proper refusal notice citing section 14. The Commissioner has also decided that in responding to the complainant’s earlier requests the public authority breached section 10 several times by failing to respond to a number of requests within 20 working days. The Commissioner is satisfied that in responding to the requests the public authority provided all of the information covered by the requests, with the exception of one request.However, the Commissioner considers that the public authority could have also refused to answer this request on the basis that it was vexatious and therefore has not ordered the public authority to fulfil the outstanding parts of this request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50110741
Case Ref: FS50104506
Date: 29/01/2007
Public Authority: Rural Payments Agency
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to three land parcels from the public authority. The Commissioner has determined that the requested information constitutes environmental information. Therefore the requests should have been processed in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). The public authority did not consider the request under the EIR. It also initially refused to provide some of the requested information on the basis that it was personal data. When refusing access to the material the public authority did not issue a refusal notice which met with the requirements of Regulation 14. However following an internal review the public authority supplied the complainant with the information requested. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information has now been supplied to the complainant and therefore he has not specified any steps in this regard. The complainant did not consider the information supplied to him following the internal review was that which he had requested. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the public authority identified the areas that were actually of interest to the complainant. It then supplied further material to the complainant. The Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority has complied with the complainant’s clarified request. In its initial refusal the public authority also explained that information on land parcel TA0436 9589 was not held. The Refusal Notice did not meet the requirements of Regulation 14. The complainant disputed the public authority’s assertion because he considered that it was under a legal obligation to map the land in question. The Commissioner has investigated the complainant’s assertion that further information is held regarding land parcel TA0436 9589. He is satisfied that the public authority does not hold any further information relevant to the request. He has not ordered any steps in relation to this part of the request. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50104506
Case Ref: FS50092315
Date: 29/01/2007
Public Authority: Charity Commission
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information relating to correspondence between the Commissioners and Trustees. The public authority withheld it under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 claiming legal professional privilege and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner did not uphold the complaint but noted that the public authority had not met the obligations placed upon it by section 17.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50092315
Case Ref: FS50103099
Date: 24/01/2007
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant requested information in respect of the public authority’s legal advice concerning the compliance of the procedures for collecting the Television Licence fee with the Human Rights Act. The public authority refused the information request on the grounds that the information requested is subject to a claim of legal professional privilege under section 42 of the Act and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In this case the Commissioner finds that section 42 applies and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Therefore, in so far as the public authority correctly applied the exemption under section 42 of the Act, it has complied with its obligations under section 1(1).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50103099
Case Ref: FS50074871
Date: 22/01/2007
Public Authority: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant sought the names of those who had repaid money to the Council following excessive expenses claims, as well as details of the amounts each individual had repaid. The Council applied an exemption to the information under section 40 of the Act. During the investigation by the Commissioner, the Council also submitted that to disclose the information would exceed the appropriate limit (section 12) and, in any event, some information was already in the public domain and therefore exempt under section 21 of the Act. The Commissioner ascertained that the information could be split into two types, namely money repaid as a result of criminal convictions through compensation orders and voluntary repayments made by both convicted and nonconvicted Council members and officers. The Commissioner has decided that the cost of considering the request for all of the information would exceed the appropriate limit, but that the Council did not provide any advice and assistance with a view to the complainant narrowing his request (section 16). The Commissioner has therefore considered whether any of the information requested could be released and has decided that it would be fair to release names and details of repayments ordered to be made as a result of criminal convictions, but the names of those who made voluntary payments and the amounts involved is exempt under section 40. The Council should therefore release the information relating to the criminal repayments. The exemption under section 21 was not found to be valid.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s12 - Partinally upheld, FOI s16 - Upheld, FOI s21 - Not upheld, FOI s40 - Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50074871
Case Ref: FS50076806
Date: 22/01/2007
Public Authority: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
Summary: A request for information was made on 30 January 2005 and the public authority withheld this information on 11 February 2005, citing the exemptions at section 40 for personal information and at section 43 for prejudice to commercial interests. The complainant did not accept the application of the exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is to uphold the application of the section 40 exemption, and to not uphold the application of the section 43 exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50076806
Case Ref: FS50081574
Date: 22/01/2007
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested disclosure of records relating to the decision by the Home Office to grant a named third party indefinite leave to remain in the UK. The Home Office withheld the information placing reliance upon the exemption under section 40 Freedom of Information Act 2000. Having considered the correspondence passing between the parties and their submissions to the Commissioner, his decision is that the Home Office has dealt with the complainant’s request in accordance with Part I of the Act, save that it has exceeded the time limit for providing a refusal notice contrary to section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50081574
Case Ref: FS50083667
Date: 22/01/2007
Public Authority: Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information on the private equity investments made by the council on behalf of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF). The council refused to supply some of the information on the basis that it was subject to a confidentiality agreement between it and various investment organisations (section 41), and that a disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of some of the parties involved (section 43). The Commissioner's decision is that the information should be disclosed on the basis that the public interest in knowing that public funds are being invested wisely overrides the public interest in protecting confidentiality in this instance. The Commissioner also believes that a disclosure would not prejudice the commercial interests of any party.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FS50083667
Case Ref: FS50086086
Date: 22/01/2007
Public Authority: Valuation Office Agency
Summary: The complainant requested information held by the Valuation Office Agency about the legal basis and advice provided by the Treasury Solicitor regarding Forms of Return. The public authority confirmed that it held the requested information but was withholding it under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (section 42) claiming legal professional privilege and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner has considered the legal advice in question and is satisfied that the public authority has applied section 42 correctly.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50086086
Case Ref: FS50086211
Date: 22/01/2007
Public Authority: Coventry City Council
Summary: The complainant requested copies of any emails sent by the policy officer to any of the planning officers at the council in respect of his client’s planning application. The council initially responded by stating that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. Upon review the council then stated that the information was exempt under section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs), and section 22 (information intended for future publication) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. When the complainant requested a further review of this decision the council responded stating that Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the Regulations’) applied. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council wrote to the Commissioner and clarified that it had made a mistake in applying the exemptions and that it did not, in fact, hold any relevant information. After investigating this claim the Commissioner is satisfied that the council does not hold any information which falls within the scope of the request. The initial refusal letter to the complainant stated that no information was held, but it did not include all of the relevant information required by Regulation 14 of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is therefore that the public authority did not comply with its obligations under Regulation 14.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50086211
Case Ref: FS50087366
Date: 22/01/2007
Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to an investigation undertaken in the early 1990s into allegations of corruption by employees of a local council. The public authority advised the complainant that although its records confirmed that a file relating to this investigation had once been held, due to the time that had elapsed since the investigation took place this file had since been weeded or destroyed. Having considered the information available the Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested by the complainant is no longer held by the public authority.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50087366
Case Ref: FS50104805
Date: 22/01/2007
Public Authority: West Devon Borough Council
Summary: The complainant made a request for information for any instructions and advice the public authority held in relation to the fees it was charging for commercial research of planning histories. The public authority confirmed that it held the requested information but withheld it under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (section 42) claiming legal professional privilege and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner has considered the instructions and legal advice in question and is satisfied that the public authority has applied section 42 correctly. However the Commissioner does find that the public authority is in breach of section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50104805
Case Ref: FS50110036
Date: 22/01/2007
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant requested confirmation as to whether the public authority held any record of a response to an email sent to Alastair Campbell in connection with, what became, the dossier on “Iraq’s weapons of Mass Destruction”. The public authority responded to the request stating that it did not hold the information requested. Following investigations the Commissioner is satisfied that the information is not held by the public authority and that the complainant's request had been dealt with in accordance with Part 1 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50110036
Case Ref: FS50112510
Date: 22/01/2007
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant drew the conclusion from four specific documents released to the Hutton Inquiry that a further draft to the dossier “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction – The assessment of the British Government” was produced on the afternoon or evening of 17 September 2002, which is currently not in the public domain. He therefore requested the public authority to confirm whether it holds, or has held, such information and if so for a copy to be released. The public authority responded to this request for information stating that it does not hold the information specified in the complainant’s request. Having considered the representations of both the complainant and the public authority the Commissioner accepts that no information falling within the scope of the request is held by the public authority. The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that the public authority dealt with the complainant’s request for information in accordance with Section 1 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50112510
Case Ref: FS50128700
Date: 22/01/2007
Public Authority: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
Summary: A request for information was made on 20 January 2005 and the public authority responded on 16 March 2005. The public authority’s response provided some information, redacted some information under section 40 of the Act, and withheld some information under section 42. The complainant disputed the application of the section 42 exemption and did not accept that all the information held by the public authority had been provided. The Commissioner accepted that the public authority had provided all the information it held, except for that which it withheld under the exemptions. The Commissioners decision is to uphold the section 42 exemption. He finds that the public authority breached section 10 of the Act in that its response was outside the twenty day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50128700
Case Ref: FS50079486
Date: 10/01/06
Public Authority: Liverpool City Council
Summary: The complainant asked Liverpool City Council for notes, minutes, correspondence and reports etc regarding prostitution in the West Everton area. The Council released several documents but withheld other information under sections 36 and 43 of the Act. The Commissioner decided that the information was not exempt from disclosure.
Section of Act / EIR & Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld; FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50079486
Case Ref: FS50120724
Date: 10/01/2007
Public Authority: Shotteswell Parish Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the public authority’s activities with regard to a playing field. The public authority replied but neither provided the specified information nor issued a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the Act. Despite attempts by the Commissioner to resolve the case informally the public authority still failed to provide a proper response to the request. The public authority is now required to disclose the outstanding information, or else issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the Act, within 35 days of the date of the notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50120724
Case Ref: FS50105111
Date: 09/01/2007
Public Authority: Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the “James Report” from the public authority. This report was the result of an investigation into recruitments made in the Community Regeneration Department there. The public authority provided the complainant with a redacted version of the report, citing the exemptions at sections 40(2) and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act. These exemptions were applied in respect of names of individuals, as well as job titles from which individuals could be identified. The people involved were a mixture of those who were the subject of the report and individuals who had provided information to substantiate the report. As the complainant expressly did not require the latter, the exemption at section 41 was not given further consideration. The Commissioner does not uphold the complaint in respect of section 40(2). It was decided that that information requested does constitute personal data and this exemption was correctly applied.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50105111
Case Ref: FS50066606
Date: 03/01/2007
Public Authority: Braintree District Council
Summary: The complainant made a request for a list of addresses of council properties owned by the public authority. This was refused under section 40 of the Act on the grounds that the information in question constituted personal data of which the applicant was not the subject and that disclosure of that information would constitute a breach of one of the data protection principles. The Commissioner considers that no such breach would occur and that it was not correct, therefore to rely upon the exemption. The Commissioner also considers that in its responses to the complainant, the Council incorrectly applied the section 38 (Health and safety) exemption and breached section 17 of the Act. In the light of the above, the Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with the requested information within 35 calendar days of the date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 38 - Complaint Upheld , FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50066606
Case Ref: FER0102914
Date: 03/01/2007
Public Authority: Wokingham District Council
Summary: The complainant made fifteen requests for information to the Council over a period of three months. The complainant requested information concerning a planning application submitted by his neighbour, subsequent complaints he had made about the matter, and other related information. Some of the requests were for information which falls within the definition of environmental information as set out in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and other requests were made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Council claimed to have provided all relevant, recorded information it held to the complainant. The Commissioner has investigated and is satisfied that all the requested information held by the Council in recorded form has now been provided to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Compliant not upheld, EIR 5(1) – Compliant not upheld.
View PDF of decision notice FER0102914
Case Ref: FS50074784
Date: 03/01/2007
Public Authority: South Gloucestershire Council
Summary: The complainant requested all information held by the public authority in relation to surveillance it carried out on him. In particular, the complainant asked for copies of letters from a third party concerning the matter. The public authority cited several exemptions including section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner is satisfied that this exemption applies, however as the information requested is the complainant’s personal data the Commissioner believes that this request should have been treated as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. As such, the information should not be disclosed under the Act. The Commissioner will now assess whether the complainant is entitled to the information under the DPA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50074784
Case Ref: FS50090630
Date: 03/01/2007
Public Authority: General Medical Council
Summary: The complainant made a request for “the name of the Medical Screener to whom the complaint about me was referred.” The public authority refused to release this information citing the exemptions provided at section 40 of the Act for personal data and at section 44 of the Act for prohibitions on disclosure. The Commissioners decision is to uphold the public authority’s application of section 40(2) to withhold the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50090630
Case Ref: FS50115617
Date: 03/01/2007
Public Authority: Northampton Borough Council
Summary: The complainants requested information on the subject of alleged grants for particular properties in Northampton. The request was submitted further to an on-going complaint including, amongst a variety of other issues, concerns about building work at the properties. The complainant alleged that the work carried out had been grant-aided and that the Council would hold recorded information on this matter. The public authority stated that no such information is held. The Commissioner has found no evidence that would suggest that the information requested is held by the public authority and does not, therefore, find any breach of section 1 of the Act in this regard.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50115617
Case Ref: FS50121882
Date: 03/01/2007
Public Authority: Stockton on Tees Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a notice published on the Council’s electronic notice board, which allegedly made critical comments about one of the companies of which he is Director. In addition, the complainant requested the name of the author of the notice, and details of any action taken against the author by the Council. The Council responded that the information was not held. The complainant believed the notice would have been saved to the Council’s back up tapes. As the Council and the complainant could not agree upon which date they believed the notice had been posted, the Commissioner asked the Council to search a number of its back up tapes for the requested information. The Council then confirmed to the Commissioner that the contents of the back up tapes had been deleted. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information is no longer held by the Council; and that it is more likely than not that the information was not held at the time of the request. The Commissioner does not therefore require any further steps to be taken by the Council.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50121882
Case Ref: FS50129838
Date: 03/01/2007
Public Authority: East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning the Council’s involvement with the development of a Tesco store. The Council responded that the information was not held and that it had been destroyed some years previously. The Commissioner has investigated and is satisfied that the information requested is not held by the Council. He does not, therefore, require the Council to take any further action. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld , FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of decision notice FS50129838