The complainant has requested information about a named insurance company. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the complainant narrowed the scope of his request to six particular documents he believed the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) would hold. The FCA identified one document and an accompanying letter which fell within the scope of the refined request. Although it has not yet done so it said it was happy to disclose the document subject to a number of redactions under section 40(2) – third party personal data and section 44 – statutory prohibition on disclosure. In respect of the other documents requested the FCA informed the Commissioner that the information was either not held or did not fall within the scope of the request as originally phrased. The Commissioner’s decision is that Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) can rely on sections 40(2) and 44 to withhold information from the one document and accompanying letter it has identified. However it is required to provide the rest of the information from those documents. The Commissioner is satisfied that the FCA does not hold the other information that has been requested or that it was not captured by the request as originally phrased. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the ‘Written Notice’ giving permission for the sale of Cardrow Insurance Ltd to Cardrow Ltd, together with the accompanying letter, except for the information the Commissioner has identified as being exempt under sections 40(2) and 44. As from the 1 April 2013 the Financial Services Authority was succeeded by the FCA. References in this decision to the FCA are also to its predecessor the Financial Services Authority.
FOI 40: Partly upheld FOI 44: Partly upheld
Citations:
[2015] UKICO FS50559076
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Information
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.555397