Case Ref: FS50072941
Date: 30/08/2007
Public Authority: Legal Services Commission
Summary: On the 01 January 2005 the complainant requested, a copy of two reports which were “ordered and received: (a) from Dr [name redacted] at the Royal Free Hospital, (b) From Professor [name redacted] /Unigenetics Ltd, at the Coombe Women’s Hospital, Dublin.” The complainant also asked for additional information relating to the funding by the Legal Aid Board (“LAB”) and the Legal Services Commission (“LSC”) of the MMR litigation. LSC refused the request under section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”), citing section 20 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and section 38 of the Legal Aid Act 1988. The Commissioner does not uphold the complaint in this case as he is satisfied that these statutory bars engage the exemption at section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However the Commissioner finds that LSC did not comply with those duties set out in section 17(1) or17 (7) of the Act when they issued their refusal notice to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50072941
Case Ref: FS50113783
Date: 30/08/2007
Public Authority: Department for Work and Pensions
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the consideration by the Department for Work and Pensions (“the DWP”) of the compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 of the clauses in the then Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill introduced into Parliament in January 2000. The complainant also requested information relating to the consideration of compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 of the new child support scheme in March 2003. The Commissioner finds that the DWP delayed in issuing a refusal notice, which stated that it was withholding the information under section 35 and section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act’’) and therefore breached section 17 of the Act. The Commissioner also finds that the DWP was correct to withhold the information under section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the Act. The Commissioner has not considered whether the DWP was correct to withhold the information under section 35 of the Act as the information is exempt under section 42.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50113783
Case Ref: FS50147437
Date: 30/08/2007
Public Authority: Preston City Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from Preston City Council (the Council) relating to the registered occupancy of a property. The request was for whether the property was registered as single occupancy for council tax purposes. The Council withheld the information on the grounds that the exemption under section 40 (personal data) of the Act applied. The Commissioner has decided that the Council was correct to apply the exemption under section 40 of the Act to the requested information, and therefore the Council is not required to take any further steps in respect of this complaint.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50147437
Case Ref: FS50136509
Date: 30/08/2007
Public Authority: Barrow Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from Barrow Borough Council (the Council) relating to the rent arrears on individual garages. The Council withheld the information on the grounds that the exemption under section 40 (personal data) of the Act applied. The Commissioner has decided that the Council was correct to apply the exemption under section 40 of the Act to the requested information, and therefore the Council is not required to take any further steps in respect of this complaint.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50136509
Case Ref: FS50102202
Date: 30/08/2007
Public Authority: Health and Safety Executive
Summary: The complaint wished to have released to him information held by the Health and Safety Executive relating to computer modelling exercises carried out to examine the likely outcomes of the impact of a terrorist attack on a major nuclear facility in the UK. HSE refused to release this information, initially citing sections 24 and 38 of the FOI Act. Subsequently, HSE said that it should have dealt with the matter under the EIR and cited regulation 12(5)(a) to justify its refusal to release the information. The commissioner is satisfied that this exception is engaged and that, in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12 – Complaint not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50102202
Case Ref: FS50093501
Date: 30/08/2007
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant sought access to legal and other advice obtained by the public authority to assist it in responding to a grievance proceeding. The public authority relied on the exemption contained in Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act to refuse disclosure of the legal advice, and said that it did not hold other advice. It submitted that the public interest in maintaining the exemption in relation to the information that it did hold outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner has decided that the Home Office appropriately relied upon the exemption in section 42 in relation to some of the material for which it has been claimed and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption overrides the public interest in disclosure over that material. However, the Commissioner is not satisfied that the exemption has been correctly applied to all of the information and therefore he has ordered that some of the material be released to the complainant. In failing to supply the sections of the requested information which the Commissioner considers were not subject to legal professional privilege, he has concluded that the Home Office breached section 1(1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner has also found that the public authority complied with the requirements of section 1(1)(a) in notifying the complainant that it did not hold the other advice. The Commissioner also identified a limited amount of information which he considered constituted the complainant’s personal data. This information is exempt under section 40 (1) of the Act. He has considered whether or not this information should have been supplied to the complainant under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 separately.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50093501
Case Ref: FS50087630
Date: 30/08/2007
Public Authority: Department for Culture Media and Sport
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information about specifications and costs for producing the ‘MadforArts’ project. The public authority provided some information but withheld other elements, citing the exemptions contained in sections 41, 43 and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). It subsequently dropped its reliance on section 41. The complainant questioned the application of the exemptions and also expressed doubts that the public authority had identified all of the information which fell within his request. After the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority identified further information, some of which it released. The Commissioner decided that some of the withheld information was exempt under section 40 but, in breach of section 1(1), the public authority had failed to disclose other information to which the section 43 exemption did not apply because there was no prejudice associated with disclosure. The Commissioner required the public authority to disclose the information which had been inappropriately withheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50087630
Case Ref: FS50093302
Date: 30/08/2007
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant requested from the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), which has since been replaced by the Ministry of Justice, “the Attorney General’s advice over the ‘public interest’ test and its interpretation under the Freedom of Information Act.” The DCA refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, applying section 35(1)(c) of the Act (Law Officers’ advice). The Commissioner has found that the DCA’s decision was in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. However, he has also decided that the refusal notice issued by the public authority did not fully conform to the requirements of section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50093302
Case Ref: FS50085508
Date: 30/08/2007
Public Authority: University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant sought disclosure of an internal report prepared by the University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust following complaints that she made about a ward on which she had worked. The public authority initially refused to disclose the report under section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). Subsequently, having disclosed the report with certain information redacted, it sought to rely on sections 40 (personal information) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of the Act in relation to the information that was withheld. The Commissioner upheld the decision of the public authority to withhold the majority of the information in the report on the basis of section 40. However, he determined that neither section 40 nor 42 were applicable to certain parts of the report. He also found that the public authority had not complied with section 17(1)(b) and (c) as it failed to state in its refusal notice that section 40 and 42 were applicable to the information requested and failed to explain why they applied.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50085508
Case Ref: FS50086627
Date: 30/08/2007
Public Authority: Commission for Local Administration in England
Summary: The complainant made a request to the Local Government Ombudsman for information related to a complaint he had previously made against Portsmouth City Council. The public authority refused the request on the basis that information related to its investigations is exempt under section 44 of the Act. The public authority confirmed that the relevant statutory prohibition is section 32(2) of the Local Government Act 1974. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has found that, to the extent that the public authority holds any recorded information falling within the scope of the request, the exemption was correctly applied. However the Commissioner has also found that the public authority breached section 17 of the Act by issuing the complainant with an inadequate refusal notice. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2007/0094 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50086627
Case Ref: FS50085374
Date: 30/08/2007
Public Authority: Department for Culture Media and Sport
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information about meetings with the Chairman of the BBC and related expenses. The public authority referred part of the request to the BBC and stated that it did not have the information covered by the remainder. On review it identified an email which it held but refused disclosure on the grounds of section 35(1)(a) or, ‘in the alternative’, section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner decided that section 35 was not engaged, but that section 36(2)(b)(ii) was. He went on to conclude that the public interest favoured maintaining this exemption in relation to the email. Accordingly, the Commissioner decided that the public authority was not in breach of section 1(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50085374
Case Ref: FS50142974
Date: 29/08/2007
Public Authority: Argoed Community Council
Summary: The complainant requested from the public authority a copy of its procedural standing orders. After initially not responding to the request, the public authority issued a refusal notice, citing the exemption at section 21 of the Act. Following a request for internal review, the public authority withdrew reliance on section 21 and issued a fees notice to the complainant. In addition, the public authority asked the complainant to sign a disclaimer before disclosing the information. The complainant paid the fee but refused to sign the disclaimer. After investigation from the Commissioner, the public authority disclosed the information without receiving the signed disclaimer. However, as the information requested is listed in the public authority’s publication scheme, the Commissioner’s decision is that the authority breached section 19 of the Act by not making the information available. The Commissioner also considers that the public authority breached section 1 of the Act by insisting upon a signed disclaimer as a pre-condition of supplying the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld, FOI 19 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50142974
Case Ref: FS50146463
Date: 16/08/2007
Public Authority: The Parades Commission
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Parades Commission relating to allegations made about a particular parade. The Parades Commission provided some information to the complainant and withheld other information, relying on the exemptions under sections 36(2)(b) and 41 of the Act. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt under section 41, and does not therefore require the Parades Commission to take any further steps in relation to the complainant’s request. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50146463
Case Ref: FS50094595
Date: 16/08/2007
Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
Summary: The complainant requested that the FSA supply him with information relating to a mystery shopping exercise into the sale of equity release products. The FSA refused to disclose some of the information under section 44 and some of the information under section 43. The Commissioner upheld the application of section 44 for all but one category of information, however, for the material withheld under section 43 the Commissioner found that the public interest lay in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the FSA to disclose the information withheld under section 43 and the information incorrectly withheld under section 44 within 35 calendar days from the date of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50094595
Case Ref: FS50140350
Date: 14/08/2007
Public Authority: Department for Work and Pensions
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the risk assessment on telephony carried out by DWP. After having initially refused to disclose the information, DWP later provided the documents it considered relevant to the request. These were taken from a wider report that the authority did not disclose in full as it was considered to be outside the scope of the request. This was challenged by the complainant. The Commissioner viewed all the information held and agreed that the information withheld from the complainant is outside of his request and therefore DWP is not required to disclose it. The Commissioner found that DWP failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days and was in breach of section 10 of the Act. The Commissioner also found that as the refusal notice issued was outside of the 20 working days that DWP were in breach of section 17 of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50140350
Case Ref: FS50116589
Date: 13/08/2007
Public Authority: Nottinghamshire Healthcare Trust
Summary: The complainant requested details of the proceedings against two senior executives of the Trust who, following an internal investigation into issues of corporate governance left the employment of the Trust. The Trust refused to disclose details of the proceedings on the basis that the information was the sensitive personal data of the two executives. The Commissioner has established that the requested information is in fact the personal data of the executives rather than their sensitive personal data. Nevertheless, the Commissioner has concluded that disclosure of their personal data would constitute a breach of the data protection principles and is therefore exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 40. However, the Commissioner also decided that the total cost of the proceedings is not the personal data of the executives and therefore this should be disclosed to the applicant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50116589
Case Ref: FS50082559
Date: 13/08/2007
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information about a meeting at Downing Street in February 2002 to discuss the NHS IT modernization project. The public authority provided some background briefing information but withheld the rest, citing the exemptions in sections 21 and 35(1)(a) and (d) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). After the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority released some further information. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority was justified in withholding the information to which it applied section 21. However, he has decided that the balance of the public interest favours disclosure of the information covered by section 35(1). Accordingly, the Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose that information within 35 calendar days of this notice. The Commissioner also concluded that the public authority had breached section 1(1)(a) of the Act in failing to give the complainant adequate written notification about whether it held information of the description specified in the request, and section 17(3) because it failed to explain its application of the public interest test adequately. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 21 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50082559
Case Ref: FS50118873
Date: 09/08/2007
Public Authority: Royal Mail
Summary: The complainant requested information from Royal Mail including statistics on the number of thefts of mail from private vehicles being used to deliver mail. Royal Mail disclosed to the complainant some of the information requested but withheld the information on the statistics of thefts under section 30 and found that the public interest lay in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner investigated the application of section 30 and found that section 30 was not engaged. The Commissioner investigated the application of section 31, offered in the alternative, and found that this was not engaged. Royal Mail therefore breached the requirement of section 1(1) (b) in failing to disclose the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner also found that Royal Mail did not issue a refusal notice within twenty working days and therefore beached section 17 of the Act. Royal Mail in failing to disclose information held, to which no exemption applied within twenty working days breached section 10 of the Act. The Commissioner requires Royal Mail to disclose the requested information within 35 calendar days from date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 30 – Complaint upheld, FOI 31 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50118873
Case Ref: FS50170171
Date: 09/08/2007
Public Authority: Dr A R Daitz
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to a GP (who, for the purposes of the Act is considered to be a public authority in his own right). The GP refused to answer this request on the basis that it was vexatious. Having considered the evidence in this case, the Commissioner is satisfied that the request was vexatious because, when taken in the context of the complainant’s previous correspondence and other actions, this request imposed a significant burden on the GP and also had the effect of harassing him. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50170171
Case Ref: FS50170245
Date: 09/08/2007
Public Authority: Dr Tessa Buckman
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to a GP (who, for the purposes of the Act is considered to be a public authority in her own right). The GP refused to answer this request on the basis that it was vexatious. Having considered the evidence in this case, the Commissioner is satisfied that the request was vexatious because, when taken in the context of the complainant’s previous correspondence and other actions, this request imposed a significant burden on the GP and also had the effect of harassing her. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50170245
Case Ref: FS50082764
Date: 08/08/2007
Public Authority: South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Summary: The requested information related primarily to complaints files, meetings and reports regarding the treatment and care of the complainant’s late son. Initially, the Trust released some information to the complainant under the Access to Health Records Act 1990, withheld some information citing section 42, of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (legal professional privilege), and claimed that the rest of the information either had been released to the complainant previously or could not be found. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the Trust agreed to release all the available information to the complainant. The complainant questioned whether all the information the Trust held had been sent and provided the Commissioner with evidence that three firms of solicitors may have been holding information on behalf of the Trust. After the Trust acquired the information held by the solicitors, it released some to the complainant, but chose to withhold some under section 42. The Commissioner is satisfied that the exemption applies and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Additionally, some information is judged to belong to the solicitors, not the Trust and so is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. However initially, the Trust breached the requirements of section 17, by not issuing an adequate refusal notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50082764
Case Ref: FS50143838
Date: 08/08/2007
Public Authority: Dr IM Gilmour
Summary: The complainant made a request for a copy of the complete medical records of a deceased patient of the surgery. This request was originally made by reference to the Access to Health Records Act. The public authority refused the request on the basis that the complainant had not provided evidence that the personal representatives or executors of the deceased patient had given consent for the information to be disclosed to him and the information was confidential. It also pointed out that the family of the deceased had expressly refused consent to disclosure of the information. In refusing the request the public authority failed to consider the request as a request for information under the Act and in doing so it therefore breached section 17 of the Act. However the Commissioner has concluded the information was exempt by virtue of section 41 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50143838
Case Ref: FS50139804
Date: 08/08/2007
Public Authority: Brighton & Hove Council
Summary: The complainant requested copies of correspondence between the Council and its insurers. The Council declined relying upon the section 42 exemption and maintaining that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner has considered the communications in question and is satisfied that the public authority has correctly applied the section 42 exemption and the public interest test correctly.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50139804
Case Ref: FS50125539
Date: 7/08/2007
Public Authority: The National Archives
Summary: The National Archives refused to allow the complainant access to the closed parts of named Foreign and Commonwealth Office files relating to arms sales to Saudi Arabia, citing section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner decided that section 27 is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours withholding the information sought (much having already been released). He therefore decided that, in refusing this request, The National Archives had dealt with it in accordance with part I of the Freedom of Information Act. In reaching this decision he followed his decision in two earlier, closely related, cases (ICO references FS50111530 and FS50119364). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50125539
Case Ref: FS50136185
Date: 07/08/2007
Public Authority: Great Sankey Parish Council
Summary: The complainant alleged that Great Sankey Parish Council (the “Council”) withheld certain items of information when responding to his request for information about its 2005/2006 end-of-year audit. The Information Commissioner considered that the request fell within the scope of section 15(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (the “ACA”) which provides specific rights of access to end-of-year account information in the period prior to its annual audit. The Commissioner decided that at the time of the request the information was reasonably accessible to the complainant otherwise than under section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). The Commissioner therefore considered that the information was exempt from disclosure under the Act by virtue of section 21.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50136185
Case Ref: FS50093058
Date: 7/08/2007
Public Authority: Great Sankey Parish Council
Summary: The complainant alleged that Great Sankey Parish Council (the “Council”) withheld certain items of information when responding to his request for information about its 2004/2005 end-of-year audit. The Information Commissioner considered that the request fell within the scope of section 15(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (the “ACA”), which provides specific rights of access to end-of-year account information in the period prior to its annual audit. The Commissioner decided that at the time of the request the information was reasonably accessible to the complainant otherwise than under section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). The Commissioner therefore considered that the information was exempt from disclosure under the Act by virtue of section 21.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50093058
Case Ref: FS50090010
Date: 07/08/2007
Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
Summary: The complainant requested the names of firms which the FSA viewed as failing to handle mortgage endowment complaints to the required standard and the extent to which they were doing so. The Commissioner investigated and found that no such list was held, but did find that the FSA held a list of firms which had generated a disproportionate number of mortgage endowment complaints. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FSA breached section 1 of the Act as it failed explain to the complainant that information of the type requested was not held.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50090010
Case Ref: FS50075781
Date: 07/08/2007
Public Authority: The Financial Services Authority
Summary: The complainant requested that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) provide him with the names of any companies it had identified by it as using inappropriate charges in setting premiums when selling endowment mortgages. The FSA refused the request on the grounds that exemptions under section 31 (law enforcement), section 43 (commercial interests) and section 44 (statutory prohibition) applied. The Commissioner's decision is that the exemptions under sections 31 and 44 of the Act do not apply. He has also decided that the exemption under section 43 is applicable, but the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs that of maintaining the exemption. This Decision Notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 - Complaint upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50075781
Case Ref: FS50080312
Date: 07/08/2007
Public Authority: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information held by the authority on the result of any legal action it took against a third party. The authority confirmed that it held information relevant to the request but refused to disclose this on the basis that the exemptions under section 32 (court records) and 41 (information provided in confidence) of the Act applied. The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption in section 32 is not engaged by the majority of this information. He has also decided that section 41 is not engaged. The majority of the information should therefore be disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 32 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50080312
Case Ref: FS50116013
Date: 06/08/2007
PublicAuthority: House of Commons
Summary: The complainant made a request to the House of Commons Treasury Committee for access to three files. The House refused to disclose all the information in two of the three files and some of the information in the third file as to disclose the information would infringe parliamentary privilege and is therefore exempt under section 34 of the Act. The House produced a certificate signed by the Speaker of the House of Commons certifying this, production of a certificate under section 34 is conclusive evidence that disclosure would infringe parliamentary privilege and so the Commissioner finds that section 34 (an absolute exemption) is engaged.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 34 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50116013
Case Ref: FS50120007
Date: 06/08/2007
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of legal advice obtained by the FCO. The legal advice concerned the issue of whether the UK Government had discharged any duty of care it owed as trustee of the Southern Rhodesia Widows’ Pension Fund when it handed over the colony of Southern Rhodesia to the Government of Zimbabwe. The FCO claimed that it was exempt from disclosure as section 42 of the Act, which relates to legal professional privilege, was engaged. The FCO further argued that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner investigated the FCO’s application of section 42 and found that the information requested is legal advice, but that privilege was waived when the FCO disclosed large parts of the advice to the complainant and others. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is not engaged, and requires the FCO to disclose the requested information in full to the complainant. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, who have ruled that the appeal should be allowed and the decision overturned.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50120007
Case Ref: FS50145237
Date: 06/08/2007
Public Authority: The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority to provide him with all the information it held about a survey into the car parking provisions at a number of hospitals in the West Midlands. The public authority provided the complainant with a number of documents, but the complainant alleged that there were further documents held by the public authority which were not disclosed to him. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority located a number of further documents covered by the scope of the request and provided these to the complainant. By failing to originally disclose these documents the Commissioner has concluded that the public authority breached section 1 of the Act. The Commissioner is now satisfied that the complainant has been provided with all of the information falling within the scope of his request and therefore does not require the public authority to take any remedial action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50145237
Case Ref: FS50079644
Date: 02/08/2007
Public Authority: HM Revenue & Customs
Summary: The complainant asked seven questions of HMRC in relation to the approval of a pension scheme. HMRC confirmed it held information relevant to the questions but withheld the information under section 44 of the Act. The Commissioner investigated and found that section 44 was engaged in respect of the information held and HMRC dealt with the request in accordance with the Act. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint not upheld. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50079644