Category: Information

Office of Government Commerce (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jun 2007

ICO The complainant requested the RAG status of any government projects currently under Gateway Review and the name of the projects. The RAG status refers to a projects status i.e. Red, Amber or Green. The OGC confirmed it held two stage zero and one stage one Gateway Review in relation to the Government ID Card Project but refused to disclose the RAG status of the project as the information requested was subject to section 33 ‘Audit Functions’ and section 35, ‘Formulation of government policy’ of the Act and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner’s review of the application of sections 33 and 35 found that the exemption under section 33 was engaged as the OGC has demonstrated that release of the information would, or would be likely to prejudice the exercise of any of its audit functions but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner found that section 35 was engaged but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner’s decision is to uphold the complaint and order the OGC to disclosure the requested information within 35 calendar days from date of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 33 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50111129
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532967

General Medical Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Apr 2007

The complainant requested details of the number of complaints to the General Medical Council against a particular doctor and the dates of those complaints. The request was refused, except for the details of a complaint which had already been disclosed at a public hearing. The public authority claimed that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) as it was the personal data of the doctor in question and that to release the information would breach the data protection principles. The Commissioner found that the exemption contained in section 40 was correctly applied and that therefore the public authority was right to withhold the information requested.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50144027
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532906

Department for Transport (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Apr 2007

The complainant requested information relating to the business interests of David Mills, the husband of Tessa Jowell MP. The public authority responded to this request stating that it did not hold the requested information, but the complainant disputed this. Following investigations, the Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority does not hold any information covered by the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the Act.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50146548
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532902

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Apr 2007

The complainant requested information about the tendering process for a research project including the successful submission. The Commissioner found that some of the information that the complainant believed should have been disclosed was not held at the time the request was made or had in fact had been released. Other information had been withheld under section 43.The Commissioner found that the refusal notices issued by the public authority failed to adequately explain the reasons why the exemption was engaged and why the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. This constitutes breaches of section 17. The public authority also failed to provide any of the information which it considered was not exempt within the statutory time limit, this constitutes a breach of the section10. In relation to the small amount of information that was withheld under section 43, the Commissioner found that the information, including that detailing the rates charged for specific elements of the project was not commercially sensitive and so should have been released. This constitutes a beach of section 1.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50101105
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532901

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice) FS50109149: ICO 26 Mar 2007

Central government
The complainant asked for information contained in communications between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (the ‘FCO’) and the Foreign Press Association (the ‘FPA’) and information relating to the suspension of financial support for the FPA. The FCO delayed in replying to this request for around a year and then said that it held no relevant information. Following further discussion the FCO established that it did hold a small amount of information and agreed to release some of it to the FPA: other information was withheld under section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner found the FCO to be in breach of sections 1, 10 and 17 of the Freedom of Information Act (the’Act’), for which it was strongly criticised. The Commissioner upheld the FCO’s decision to withhold the remaining information under section 35(1)(a). An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
FOI 1: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50109149
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532882

Treasury Solicitors (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Mar 2007

The complainant submitted an FOI request to the Attorney General, asking for correspondence, papers and files which led to the Attorney General making an application to the Employment Appeals Tribunal to have him declared a vexatious litigant. The Treasury Solicitor’s Department (TSol) (acting for the Attorney General) refused to supply this information on the basis that the information is exempt under section 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) and section 31 (law enforcement) of the Act. The Commissioner decided that TSol should instead have applied section 40(1) (personal information) because the information requested constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject. The Commissioner has nevertheless also addressed the exemptions used by TSol and has further decided that section 30 does not apply but section 31 is engaged with public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighing that in disclosure of the information.
FOI 30: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50072189
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532895

Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Apr 2007

The complainant, and his wife, requested information about a doctor who had previously worked for the public authority. Specifically he asked whether the doctor had been carrying out a six monthly rotation as part of her training for General Practice, whilst working in Huddersfield Royal Infirmary’s Haematology Department in 2003. The public authority refused to provide this information, claiming that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOI Act’). The public authority confirmed to the Commissioner that it believed the release of this information would be in breach of the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). After considering the submissions of both parties the Commissioner concluded that the release of this information would not be a breach of the DPA, and that therefore section 40(2) was not engaged. The Commissioner also decided that the public authority was in breach of section 17, as the initial refusal notice was inadequate. Consequently, the complaint was upheld.
FOI 17: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50147863
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532896

Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Mar 2007

Local government (District council)
The complainant requested information from the public authority in relation to a review carried out on fire stations in Hertfordshire. The public authority disclosed the information, but failed to provide some of the information within the required 20 working days
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50114875
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532885

Commission for Patient and Public Involvement In Health (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Apr 2007

The complainant requested a copy of an internal report prepared by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health following an investigation into the relationship between some NHS Patients’ Forum members and their support organisation. The request was initially refused under section 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities). The public authority subsequently argued that the report was exempt under sections 31 (law enforcement) and 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner has concluded that sections 31 and 41 were not applicable and that the report should be disclosed to the complainant. In addition, he decided that the public authority had breached section 17(1), as it failed to state in its refusal notice that sections 31 and 41 were applicable to the information, and section 17(7), as it failed to state in its refusal notice whether it had a procedure for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for information.
FOI 17: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50105717
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532899

Nottingham City Council (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Mar 2007

The complainant wrote to Nottingham City Council (the ‘Council’) on 11 February, 21 March and 23 October 2005 requesting information relating to the relocation of Blenheim Lane allotments to a new site. The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the Council’s responses to the complainant’s requests failed to comply with regulation 5 (time for compliance), regulation 14 (refusal to disclose) and regulation 7 in extending the time to respond to the requests on the basis of the complexity of its consideration of the public interest test under the Environmental Regulations 2004 (‘EIR’). The Commissioner has decided that the Council correctly applied regulation 13 in refusing to provide to the complainant information about the individual compensation awarded to named allotment holders. The Commissioner has ordered the Council to respond to the outstanding aspects of the complainant’s requests for information dated 11 February, 21 March and 23 October 2005 by clearly confirming or denying what information it holds and providing information to which he is entitled or indicating the basis on which the information is exempt from disclosure in accordance with its obligations under regulation 14.
EIR 5: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FER0091004
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532890

Export Credits Guarantee Department (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Mar 2007

The complainant said that the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) had refused its request for information about support given to BAE Systems (BAES), including a list of each of the BAES projects that ECGD supported, together with: the date the support was given; the type of insurance or guarantees given; the original amount; and, the then current exposure, if any. The Commissioner decided that, in refusing the request, ECGD had dealt with it in accordance with the requirements of the Act. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal but was later withdrawn.
FOI 43: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50087290
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532880

Royal Mail (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Mar 2007

The complainant requested information from Royal Mail in relation to its Smart Stamp service. Royal Mail confirmed that the requested information was held but withheld it from disclosure under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (Prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner has concluded that Royal Mail correctly applied this exemption. He considers the exemption to be engaged in respect of all the requested information with the public interest favouring the maintenance of the exemption. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal but the Tribunal has ruled on this appeal and dismissed the appeal.
FOI 43: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50126145
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532893

Northern Ireland Office (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Mar 2007

The complainant made three requests by email to the Northern Ireland Office (the NIO) on 14, 15 and 22 August 2006. He received no response, and contacted the NIO again on 11 October 2006. The NIO acknowledged the complainant’s email of 11 October 2006 and advised that it would respond to his requests. The NIO provided the complainant with the information he requested in relation to two of the three requests on 30 October 2006 and 10 January 2007, but failed to provide the complainant either with the information he requested, or a refusal notice, in relation to the other request. The Commissioner therefore requires the NIO to provide a response to the complainant in relation to the outstanding request.
FOI 1: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50144942
Bailii
Northern Ireland

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532889

District of Easington Council (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Mar 2007

Local government (District council)
The complainant made a request to the public authority for a copy of a building survey commissioned by Thornley Community Centre Committee on Thornley Community Centre. The public authority withheld the survey citing section 41(1) of the Act; information provided in confidence. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority correctly withheld the building survey information but a coal mining report that was attached to the survey should be released under the Regulations. The Commissioner partly upholds the public authority’s decision and partly upholds the complaint.
FOI 41: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50132849
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532879

Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Mar 2007

The complainant requested information relating to alleged surveillance of him by the public authority. The public authority will neither confirm nor deny the existence of such information as if it were to exist; it would be subject to the exemption at section 31 relating to law enforcement. Following consideration of the public interest, the Commissioner upholds the public authority’s decision
FOI 17: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50121212
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532891

St Albans City and District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 5 Mar 2007

The complainants had requested all documents and records held regarding planning applications submitted by a neighbour, their subsequent complaints in respect of how the planning applications were processed, and complaint to the local government ombudsman. The Council provided some of the information requested, withholding the remainder under sections 40 and 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’). Following the intervention of the Commissioner the Council agreed to release additional information to the complainants, however, it insisted on withholding six documents citing the exemptions mentioned. The Commissioner is satisfied that the exemptions have been applied appropriately therefore; the Council are not required to take any further action. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50075365
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532894

Milford Haven Port Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Mar 2007

The complainant requested information, later narrowed down to two documents, about risk assessments carried out in relation to the development in Milford Haven of two Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminals. The Port Authority withheld the information by virtue of the exceptions at regulations 12(5)(b), (e) and (f). The Commissioner’s decision is that, in relation to the first document, none of the exceptions cited are engaged. In relation to the second document, the Commissioner has decided that the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged, but that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Port Authority applied the regulations inappropriately in seeking to withhold the information. The Port Authority also initially breached the requirements as set out in regulations 5(2) and 14(2). An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal but was later withdrawn.
EIR 5: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FER0072936
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532887

Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Mar 2007

Central government
The complainant requested documentation held by HMRC to support its interpretation of a particular piece of legislation. HMRC responded to confirm it held information but that it was exempt from disclosure as the documentation was legal advice and so section 42 of the Act, ‘legal professional privilege’, was engaged. HMRC also argued that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner investigated HMRC’s application of section 42 and found that the information requested is legal advice and is therefore covered by the exemption and that the public interest does favour maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC dealt with the request in accordance with the Act and require no steps to be taken.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50133903
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532884

Gloucestershire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Mar 2007

Local government (County council)
The complainant made a request for a copy of a petition which was submitted by a councillor in relation to his tenancy. In response to the request, the Council released some information under the Data Protection Act 1998. This was limited to the heading ‘Undesirable Tenant’ followed by the complainant’s address at the time. The Council stated that the names, addresses and signatures of those who signed the petition were exempt from release under section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner has investigated and is satisfied that the exemption has been correctly applied.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50086626
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532883

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Decision Notice) FS50086619: ICO 26 Mar 2007

Central government
The complainant asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (‘FCO’) for any information that it held relating to the Rhodesian Army’s raid on Joshua Nkomo’s headquarters in Lusaka in April 1979. FCO provided the complainant with five documents relevant to his request but withheld others, citing section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). FCO considered that the balance of the public interest favoured withholding the information. The complainant sought an internal review of the decision, and asked FCO for the exact number of documents that had been withheld. FCO maintained the decision to withhold the information sought, saying that it was unable to provide detailed reasons without revealing the contents of documents (in effect a section 17(4) argument). FCO also declined to disclose the number of relevant documents, but agreed to do so following the Commissioner’s intervention. Having viewed the information, the Commissioner accepted that some of the information had been correctly withheld under section 27, but considered that some of it could be released. He criticised FCO for its failure specifically to cite section 17(4).
FOI 17: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50086619
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532881

Department for Constitutional Affairs (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Mar 2007

The complainant requested information on the number and rank of judges and magistrates who had been disciplined for misuse of departmental computer systems, including those who had been found to use the internet to view pornography. The public authority initially admitted that it held the information but refused to provide it citing the exemption in section 36. In a later development, the public authority informed the complainant that it would ‘neither confirm nor deny’ that it held the information requested and applied the exemptions in sections 31 and 36 of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 17 of the Act, and that it has also incorrectly applied sections 31 and 36 of the Act. Consequently and in the particular circumstances of this complaint, the DCA should confirm whether or not it holds the information requested by the complainant.
FOI 17: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50074348
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532875

Office of Government Commerce (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Feb 2007

ICO The complainant requested copies of eight letters sent by the OGC to the relevant Permanent Secretaries following their department’s projects receiving a double red warning in Gateway reports and any replies from the Permanent Secretaries. The OGC disclosed edited copies of the letters but refused to disclose them in full on the grounds that the information requested was subject to section 33 of the Act ‘Audit Functions’ and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner investigated whether section 33 of the Act applied to the requested information and found that the exemption was not engaged as the OGC had failed to demonstrate that release of the information would, or would be likely to prejudice the exercise of any of its audit functions. The Commissioner’s decision is to uphold the complaint and order the OGC to disclose the requested information within 35 calendar days from date of this notice. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
FOI 33: Upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50095679
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532846

North Tyneside Council (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Feb 2007

ICO The complainant asked the Council for information which it held about the British National Party (BNP) and the Tyne and Wear Anti-Fascist Association (TWAFA). In its response the Council said that it held no information about the BNP. It provided to the complainant limited information about one grant made to TWAFA and a summary of a letter from TWAFA in relation to its grant. The Council withheld copies of the minutes of meetings of the Racial Incidents Working Group (RIWG) and did not inform the complainant of its existence. The Council applied the exemptions contained in sections 31(1)(a), 38(1)(a) and (b) and 40(3)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act to the information withheld. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the Council identified further relevant information (including a report by the RIWG), which it provided to the complainant after redacting information giving personal details about TWAFA staff. The Commissioner has decided that sections 38 and 40 are engaged, and that the public interest lay in favour of maintaining the section 38 exemption. However, he has decided that a copy of one of TWAFA’s audited annual reports, and redacted extracts of the RIWG minutes should be released to the complainant.
FOI 38: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50070185
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532844

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Mar 2007

ICO The complainant requested information in relation to the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999. The Commissioner is satisfied that, under section 12 of the Act, the public authority was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the information, as to do so would in itself exceed the appropriate limit. The public authority informed the complainant within 20 working days of the request that it was relying on section 12 of the Act, and the Commissioner is therefore satisfied that the public authority has complied with section 17 of the Act. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the public authority provided further advice and assistance to the complainant and the Commissioner now considers that the public authority has complied with section 16 of the Act. An appeal was made to the Tribunal but later withdrawn.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50095636
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532878

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Jan 2007

ICO 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.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50129838
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532806

Department of Health (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Dec 2008

ICO The complainant requested copies of any documentation held by the Department of Health referring to the Director of Public Health at Norwich Primary Care Trust, and relating to Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, between specific dates. Although some information was disclosed, some was withheld under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 40. During the course of the investigation the DoH informed the Commissioner that it was also relying upon section 42 to withhold some of the information in question. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the withheld information was not exempt from disclosure under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii). He also found that some of the information previously withheld under section 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i) should be disclosed. However, he upheld the DoH’s use of section 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i) in relation to some of the withheld information, and also found that this provided an exemption for some of the information the DoH had previously withheld under section 36. He also upheld the DoH’s use of section 42. Finally, the Commissioner also found that the DoH had not complied with the requirements of section 17(1)(b) and (c).
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 36: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50175121
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532782

Department of Health (Decision Notice) FS50149374: ICO 22 Dec 2008

ICO The complainant made a request to the Department of Health (the ‘DoH’) for copies of the minutes of the ‘MMR sub-committee’ from the period January 1986 to December 1992. The DoH provided a redacted copy of these minutes and informed the complainant that information had been withheld under sections 40 and 43. At the internal review the DoH also cited sections 36 and 41. During the course of the investigation the DoH informed the Commissioner that it was also relying upon section 38. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that although section 36 was engaged, the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. He also decided that sections 38, 41 and 43 were not engaged. He also decided that section 40 did not provide an exemption from disclosure. Finally, he also found that the DoH had not complied with the requirements of sections 17(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2009/0007 has been withdrawn.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 36: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50149374
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532780

General Medical Council (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Jan 2007

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.
>
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2007] UKICO FS50090630
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532807

Department of Health (Decision Notice) FS50149375: ICO 22 Dec 2008

ICO The complainant made a request to the Department of Health (the ‘DoH’) for copies of the minutes of the ‘Adverse Reactions Committee’ from the period January 1986 to December 1992. The DoH provided a redacted copy of these minutes and informed the complainant that information had been withheld under sections 40 and 43. At internal review the DoH also cited section 41. During the course of the investigation the DoH informed the Commissioner that it was also relying upon sections 36 and 38. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that although section 36 was engaged, the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. He also decided that sections 38, 41 and 43 were not engaged. He also decided that section 40 did not provide an exemption from disclosure. Finally, he also found that the DoH had not complied with the requirements of sections 17(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2009/0005 has been withdrawn.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 36: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50149375
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532781

Department of Health (Decision Notice) FS50149373: ICO 22 Dec 2008

ICO The complainant made a request to the Department of Health (the ‘DoH’) for copies of the minutes of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation from the period January 1986 to December 1992. The DoH provided a redacted copy of these minutes and informed the complainant that information had been withheld under sections 40 and 43. At the internal review the DoH also cited sections 36 and 41. During the course of the investigation the DoH informed the Commissioner that it was also relying upon section 38. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that although section 36 was engaged, the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. He also decided that sections 38, 41 and 43 were not engaged. He also decided that section 40 did not provide an exemption from disclosure. Finally, he also found that the DoH had not complied with the requirements of sections 17(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2009/0006 has been withdrawn.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 36: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50149373
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532779

Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Nov 2008

ICO The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust for information relating to how many cases involving the Kent and Sussex Hospital were referred to the North West Kent Coroner’s office between April 2004 and September 2006 and the proportion of those cases that were actually found against the hospital. The Trust ultimately refused the complainant’s request as to provide the information would exceed the cost limit as set out by section 12 of the Act. Upon intervention by the Commissioner the Trust was able to provide some of the requested information up to the Aandpound;450 cost limit. The Commissioner upheld the Trust’s refusal to provide any further information as it would exceed the cost limit as set out by section 12 of the Act. The Commissioner does however consider that the Trust failed under section 16(1) of the Act to provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance as to what information it would be able to provide to the complainant prior to the Commissioner’s intervention. Further more as the Trust did not state its reliance upon section 12 with the time limit, the Commissioner also considers that the Trust breached section 17(5) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50198379
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532759

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Nov 2008

ICO The complainant requested that the Rural Payments Agency disclose information regarding the distribution of subsidies under the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy. The RPA ultimately relied on the exemption provided by regulation 13 of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner found that the legitimate interest in the processing of the third party data outweighed the legitimate interests of the data subjects. The Commissioner therefore upheld the complainant’s complaint and directed that the requested information be released.
EIR 13: Upheld EIR 13: Upheld EIR 14: Upheld

[2008] UKICO FER0112249
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532754

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Nov 2008

ICO The complainant requested the amount the BBC gave away in prize money on game shows in 2005 and 2006. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis that it was not a public authority in relation to this request because the information was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature within the meaning set out in Schedule 1 of the Act. Having considered the purposes for which this information is held, the Commissioner has concluded that the requested information was not held for the dominant purposes of journalism, art or literature and therefore the request falls within the scope of the Act. However, the Commissioner has concluded that to fulfil the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit and therefore the BBC does not have an obligation to respond to the request because the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that in handling this request the BBC breached sections 1(1)(a) and 17(5).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50146833
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532752

National Offender Management Service (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Nov 2008

The complainants requested information about the awarding of a contract for the provision of healthcare at HMP The Mount. The public authority initially refused to disclose any information as it believed this information to be exempt by virtue of section 21(1). At internal review stage the public authority located additional information falling within the scope of the request. The majority of this information was disclosed, with the remainder withheld under section 36(2)(b)(ii). The information previously withheld under section 21(1) was also disclosed at that stage. The Commissioner finds that section 36(2)(b)(ii) was applied correctly to the majority of this information. In relation to the remainder of this information, the Commissioner concludes that the opinion of the qualified person that disclosure would result in inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views is not reasonable and the public authority is required to disclose this information.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 36: Partly upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50145238
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532760

General Medical Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Oct 2008

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) to the General Medical Council (the ‘GMC’) for ‘all correspondence between the GMC, [named doctor] and his employers’. The GMC confirmed or denied whether it held that information under section 1(1)(a) of the Act. After considering the case, the Commissioner finds that the GMC was not obliged to respond under section 1(1) (a) by virtue of the provisions of section 40(5)(b)(i). This is because in responding to the request it has disclosed information which constitutes the personal data of the named doctor. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any further steps in relation to the complainant’s request.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50178633
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.532738