MP Info News from the Information Commissioner's Office

Down load this for your web site from here

Latest Parliamentary Debates

Down load this for your web site from here

All MPs and Lords
Every Constituency
Every Local Authority
Devolved Representatives
Every Political Party
Latest Election Leaflets

New legislation and Statutory Instruments

Enter name of committee to find the members

Down load this for your web site from here

Latest Written Ministerial Statements

Down load this for your web site from here

Parliamentary Division Votes

Early day Motions

Search petition the PM.

Download this for your web site from here

Petitions to the Prime Minister

What the Government is Saying

Government Papers

UK Polling Reports

Local Government Association News

Public Sector News

National Statistics

National Audit Office

HM Treasury and Bank of England News

Electorial Commission News and Consultations

Information Commissioner News

Freedom of Information Request

Your Freedom

National Arcives News and Latest Releases

Consultations

The latest Consultations

List of Departments

International

United Nations Says

World Quango Reports

UN Food and Agrigulture

UN World Food Programme

World Political News

Parliamentary Licence number: P2006000429

ICO Press Releases

Press releases from the ICO
Copyright 2006 Information Commissioner's Office
Fri, 03 Sep 2010 05:59:01 GMT

ICO Decision Notices

Decision notice
Copyright 2006 Information Commissioner's Office
Fri, 03 Sep 2010 05:59:01 GMT

FS50303366

In July 2009 the House of Commons asked Sir Thomas Legg, a former civil servant, to review the payments that had been made to MPs under the Additional Costs Allowance and to deliver a report detailing his findings. Sir Thomas provided the House of Commons with the final version of his report in early 2010. The complainant requested copies of correspondence exchanged between the Sir Thomas Legg review and a particular MP during the course of this review. The House of Commons explained that although Sir Thomas was acting on behalf of a committee of the House of Commons in conducting the report, he did not hold information on behalf of the committee in question for the purposes of the Act. The House of Commons therefore refused the request on the basis that it did not hold the information requested. Having considered the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner agrees with the House of Commons that it does not hold the requested information.
Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:53:20 GMT

FS50299777

The complainant requested an inspection of the accounts of Shotteswell Parish Council (“the Council”) for the years 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. Following an unsuccessful attempt to arrange a suitable appointment, the Council wrote to the complainant advising him that it believed the request was vexatious. The Commissioner investigated and decided that the request was not vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). As the Council also raised issues connected to section 11(1)(b) of the FOIA concerning the practicality of allowing an inspection of the accounts, the Commissioner also considered section 11(1)(b) as part of his investigation. The Commissioner decided that in the particular circumstances of this case, inspection of the accounts would not be reasonably practicable and he therefore requires no steps to be taken. The Commissioner found breaches of 17(5) and 17(7)(a).
Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:48:53 GMT

FS50295061

The complainant requested information relating to the way in which Wolverhampton City Council (the “Council”) had investigated a complaint concerning the authority’s decision to withdraw funding from the Race Equality Partnership Wolverhampton. The Council did not respond to this request within the statutory time-limit and the Commissioner finds that, by its failure, the public authority did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:43:01 GMT

FS50252690

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Merton (“the Council”) concerning proposals to make certain roles within the Council redundant. The Council initially refused to provide any information citing the exemptions under section 40(2) and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). In relation to the latter exemption, it concluded that the public interest favoured withholding the information. During the internal review, the Council provided the information that it had sought to withhold using section 40(2). Once the scope of the request had been clarified, the information withheld under section 43(2) was no longer relevant. The Council identified that it held a number of items of information relating to the request that had either been disclosed or which were already in the public domain. It disclosed this information in a single bundle to the complainant. It then sought to withhold a small amount of information under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c). It considered that the public interest favoured maintenance of the exemptions. The Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) was satisfied that section 36(2)(b)(ii) was engaged in respect of this information but he did not agree that the public interest favoured withholding it. The arguments identified by the qualified person in relation to section 36(2)(c) were found to be relevant and reasonable but in relation to section 36(2)(b)(ii). Having addressed the arguments under section 36(2)(b)(ii), it was not necessary to consider section 36(2)(c) further as no additional arguments were made about how disclosure would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner considers that the Council breached sections 10(1), 1(1)(b) and 17(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the FOIA.
Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:34:01 GMT

FS50251777

The complainant submitted a request to Fortismere School (‘the School’) for papers submitted to the Governing Body and correspondence between the headteacher and the Chair of Governors. The School disclosed some of the requested information and refused to provide the outstanding information under section 12 of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 is not engaged. The Commissioner also found that Fortismere School has breached section 10(1) of the Act in failing to comply with section 1(1) within twenty working days following receipt of the request. The public authority must take the steps required within 35 calendar days of the date of this notice.
Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:41:38 GMT

FS50288182

The complainant requested a copy of a report compiled by a senior Metropolitan Police Service officer about its “deep undercover unit”. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) told the complainant that it did not hold the report. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MPS cited section 14(1) (vexatious) in respect of the request. In this case, having considered the context and history of the request, the Commissioner considers that there are sufficient grounds to uphold the application of section 14(1). However, he found procedural errors in the MPS’s handling of the request.
Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:35:09 GMT

FS50286906

The complainant made separate, related, requests for the cost of three investigations into a long running murder enquiry. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) responded citing a refusal under section 14(1) of the Act (vexatious request). The Commissioner, on balance, considers that the public authority was entitled to refuse the requests under section 14(1). However, he found procedural errors in the MPS’s handling of the requests.
Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:30:49 GMT

FS50279602

The complainant requested information concerning the legal advice taken to direct overpayments at tolls to charitable organisations. The public authority explained the general nature of its advice but refused to disclose its actual advice by virtue of section 42(1) of the Act. It maintained its view at internal review. The Commissioner has considered the case in detail and has determined that the public authority had applied section 42(1) correctly in this case. He did however find a breach of section 10(1) because the public authority failed to provide a response to the request within 20 working days. It also breached section 17(1) by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days of the request. He requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:16:41 GMT

FS50273941

The complainant asked the Cabinet Office for copies of any documents where The Queen approved the wearing of The Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal for those visiting Malaysia during that country’s independence celebrations in August and September 2007. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the information it held citing the exemptions contained at sections 35(1)(a) – formulation and development of government policy; 37(1)(a) – communications with the Royal Family; and 37(1)(b) – information relating to the conferring of an honour or dignity. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office disclosed one piece of correspondence falling within the scope of this request but continued to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner has concluded that this remaining information is exempt from disclosure section 37(1)(a) and furthermore that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the requested information.
Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:12:59 GMT

FS50273866

The complainant made a number of requests for information about how the public authority had adapted in consequence to a specific set of Competition Appeal Tribunal hearings concerning a competition inquiry about common carriage and bulk supply charges for water. The public authority confirmed that it held some relevant information within the scope of the request, but that it believed it could withhold the information by virtue of section 42(1) [legal professional privilege]. It upheld its position in its internal review. The Commissioner has considered this case in detail. He has decided that the information was not environmental information and was therefore subject to the Act. He has considered each of the items that were withheld by the public authority and has decided that section 42(1) was engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs that in its disclosure. He has also found a procedural breach of section 10(1) and section 17(1) as the public authority failed to respond to one of the requests within twenty working days but requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:56:22 GMT

FS50269514

HM Treasury was asked to disclose all documentation generated by its consideration and formulation of Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 (retrospective legislation that sought to end a scheme that the government considered to be a “highly artificial and aggressive tax avoidance scheme”). The public authority relied upon sections 21, 29(1)(a),35(1)(a) and (b), 36 (2) and 42(1) to withhold the information. The Commissioner concluded that all the withheld information was exempt either under the provisions of section 35(1) (a) or under the provisions of 36 (2) (b) (i) and that the public interest favoured the maintenance of the exemptions.
Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:48:54 GMT

FS50258812

The complainant requested details of the statutory enactment and clause that permits restraint under a community care order and social services care plan. Lincolnshire County Council (the Council) applied the exemption contained at section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as the requested information is readily available on www.opsi.gov.uk. The Commissioner has concluded that section 21 is not engaged as the Council did not precisely direct the complainant to the information requested. The Commissioner therefore upholds the complaint in this case but does not require the Council to take any further action.
Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:43:49 GMT

FS50290108

The complainant requested information about how many letters the public authority had sent out where it stated that it was refusing to correspond with their recipient about a specific medal. The public authority applied section 14(1) to the request. It explained that in its view the request was vexatious. It maintained its position in its internal review. The Commissioner has considered this case carefully and has determined that a reasonable public authority could find the request for information vexatious. He therefore upholds the application of section 14(1) and dismisses the complaint. There were some procedural breaches of section 10(1) and 17(5) as a response was not issued to the request within twenty working days of its receipt, but the Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:50:49 GMT

FS50228242

The complainant requested submissions, memos and emails which led to the Secretary of State’s decision to extend part of the complainant’s Unitary Development Plan relating to its affordable housing policy. The public authority disclosed a substantial part of the information held and originally withheld the remainder on the basis of an exemption in section 36 of the Act. The Commissioner decided that the requests should have been addressed under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). The public authority subsequently relied on the exception at regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner found that the withheld information was correctly withheld on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e) but in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exception did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner therefore requires all the withheld information to be disclosed to the complainant.
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:47:24 GMT

FS50240639

The complainant requested details of the contributions received by the public authority in support of two published reports relating to the Armed Forces (Service Command Paper and The National Recognition Study Report). The public authority withheld the requested information on the basis of the exemptions at sections 40(2) (personal data), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 36(2)(b)(ii) (free and frank exchange of views for purposes of deliberation). The Commissioner decided that contributions in support of the Service Command Paper were correctly withheld on the basis of section 40(2) and those in support of the National Recognition Study were correctly withheld on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(ii). The Commissioner however finds the public authority in breach of section 17(1) (refusal of request).
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:44:52 GMT

FS50242593

The complainant requested a summary of the relevant experience of each applicant who had been short-listed for a specific post within the Department of Finance and Personnel (NI) (DFPNI). DFPNI refused to disclose the information under sections 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i) of the Act as it comprised personal data, and disclosure would be unfair. The Commissioner considers that section 40(2) by virtue of 40(3)(a)(i) was correctly applied in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:42:43 GMT

FS50252196

The complainant made a request to Devon County Council for a copy of the Operations Maintenance Manual (OMM) for ISCA College. He stated that he did not mind whether the information was provided via CD or electronic transfer. The public authority refused the request, explaining that it did not hold the information electronically and that complying with his request would cost in excess of the statutory limit of £450. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the public authority altered the grounds of its refusal, explaining that it considered the complainant’s request vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner upholds the public authority’s decision to refuse the request for information as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. By its failure to provide the complainant with a notice within 20 working days, stating its refusal under section 14 of the Act, the public authority has breached section 17(5) of the Act. The Commissioner requires no action to be taken.
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:39:53 GMT

FS50274855

On 11 August 2008 following a lengthy chain of correspondence the complainant requested that the public authority provide copies of all documentation surrounding the medal claims he had put forward relating to his late grandfather in 2004. The public authority responded and over several months the complainant disputed whether the public authority had complied with the request fully. On 19 December 2008 the public authority issued a refusal notice stating the complainant had received all the information held pertaining to his request. The Commissioner has investigated the handling of the request and has found that the public authority has provided all the information it held, thus complying with section 1. However he has found that the public authority breached section 10(1) in not responding within twenty working days. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken by the public authority.
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:36:44 GMT

FS50275488

The complainant requested the Council to release copies of all recorded information it held in relation to a complaint she raised against a parish councillor. The Council responded refusing to disclose the information under sections 41 and 42 of the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council claimed a late reliance on section 40(2) of the Act, as it identified that the requested information contains personal data. The Commissioner has considered the application of section 40(2) of the Act in this case and is satisfied that the requested information should be withheld under this exemption. As he is satisfied that section 40(2) of the Act applies to the requested information, he did not go on to consider the Council’s former reliance on sections 41 and 42 of the Act.
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:34:21 GMT

FS50278116

The complainant made a freedom of information request to UK Trade and Investment for a number of documents relating to Iraq and its oil industry. In response the public authority released the documents in a redacted form. The complainant challenged the public authority’s decision to redact information from two of the documents under the exemptions in section 27(1)(a) and (d) (International relations); section 40(2) (Personal information); section 41(1) (Information provided in confidence) and section 43(2) (Commercial interests). The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has found that section 27(1)(a) was engaged and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure; that section 41(1) was engaged for most of the information to which it had been applied and that section 40(2) was only partially engaged. The Commissioner did not look at section 27(1)(d) or section 43(2) as he was satisfied that other exemptions applied. The Commissioner also found that in its handling of the request the public authority breached section 1(1)(b) of the Act (General right of access to information held by public authorities); section 10(1) (Time for compliance) and section 17(1) (Refusal of a request). The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the information which is not exempt under section 41(1) or section 40(2) within 35 calendar days of the date of this notice.
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:29:17 GMT

FS50288713

The complainant requested considerable information from the public authority concerning General Sir Richard Dannatt. The public authority said that it held no relevant recorded information that was relevant to his requests. It confirmed its position in its internal review. The Commissioner has carefully considered this case and has determined that on the balance of probabilities no recorded information was held by the public authority. He requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:26:19 GMT

FS50235544

The public authority requested the formal notice and other additional information in relation to infraction proceedings brought against the UK Government by the European Commission regarding the transposition of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation). The public authority refused to disclose the information on the basis of the exemptions at sections 27(1)(b) and 36(2)(c), and additionally sought to rely on the exemption at section 27(1)(c) during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner found that section 27(1)(b) was not engaged but concluded that the exemption at section 36(2)(c) was correctly engaged. The Commissioner also found that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest was in favour of maintaining the exemption at section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner did not therefore need to exercise his discretion as to whether or not to accept the late reliance on the section 27(1)(c).
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:27:06 GMT

FER0314877

The complainant submitted a request to Test Valley Borough Council (‘the Council’) for information from environmental records held on a property in Andover. The complainant specified that he wished to view the records in person. The Council initially stated that the information would only be provided if the complainant paid a fee. However, during the course of the investigation, the Council decided to allow the complainant to inspect the requested information free of charge. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to comply with regulation 5(2) as it failed to make the requested information available within 20 working days. In addition, the Council breached regulation 11(4) by failing to conduct an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner notes that the Council has now decided to comply with the complainant’s request and so he requires no steps to be taken.
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:22:39 GMT

FER0276228

The complainant submitted a request to Cheshire West and Chester Council (‘the Council’) for information from environmental records held on a property in Chester. The complainant specified that he wished to view the records in person. The Council agreed to provide the information requested but only on the provision of a set fee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to comply with regulation 5(1) as it failed to make information available on request, and 5(2) as it failed to make it available within the statutory time for compliance. The Council breached regulation 6(1) by failing to comply with the complainant’s request to make information available in a particular format. The Council has also breached regulation 8(2)(b) by attempting to impose a charge to allow the complainant to inspect information. In addition, the Council breached regulation 11(4) by failing to provide the outcome of its internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to make the requested information available for the complainant to inspect within 35 days of this notice.
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:15:44 GMT

FS50279677

The complainant requested the Council to disclose the recorded information it holds relating to its decision to cover the court costs that may or may not be awarded to a named party in particular proceedings should the appellants’ appeal succeed. The Council responded to this request refusing to disclose any information relating to the court case under section 42 of the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation it was established that the Council holds two pieces of information relevant to the complainant’s request. These are referred to as item 1 and item 2 throughout the Notice. In respect of item 1, the Commissioner concluded that this information was exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of the Act. However, in respect of item 2, the Commissioner decided that the Council had waived its right to claim legal professional privilege to this information. He therefore concluded that section 42(1) of the Act did not apply to this information and requested the Council to release this information to the complainant within 35 days of this Notice.
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:57:32 GMT

FS50275530

The complainant requested information from the Northern Ireland Office (the NIO) relating to the lapse of a security licence in 2006. The NIO initially refused the requested information under sections 44 and 31 of the Act. At internal review stage the NIO released most of the information, redacting a small amount of information under section 42 of the Act. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the NIO subsequently also applied sections 38 and 40 to some of the redacted information. The Commissioner finds that the exemptions have been correctly applied, and that the NIO acted correctly in refusing to provide some of the requested information. Therefore the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken. However the Commissioner has noted a number of procedural breaches of the Act.
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:54:29 GMT

FS50274036

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to request risk registers relating to the Government’s Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration Project. DECC refused the request under the exemptions in section 43(2) (Commercial interests), and section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner has investigated and has found that all of the requested information was exempt under section 43(2) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also found that in its handling of the request the public authority breached sections 17(1) and 17(1)(b) (Refusal of a request) but requires no steps to be taken.
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:47:11 GMT

FS50266724

The complainant made a request to the Metropolitan Police Service (“the public authority”) for information about the costs of royal security and protection. The public authority originally neither confirmed nor denied holding the information by virtue of the exemptions at sections 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 38(2) (health and safety). This was amended to sections 24(1), 31(1)(a), (b) and (c), and 38(1)(b) at internal review when the public authority confirmed it held relevant information. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority applied the provisions of section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to apply the provisions of section 12(1) albeit belatedly. The public authority was therefore not obliged to comply with the request. The complaint is not upheld. The public authority’s handling of the request also resulted in a breach of the procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice.
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:42:40 GMT

FS50251014

The complainant made a nine-part request to the Metropolitan Police Service (“the public authority”) for information about the costs of royal protection. Information about the first part of the request was withheld under the exemption at section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether any further information was held by virtue of the exemptions at sections 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 38(2) (health and safety). During the Commissioner’s investigation the complainant agreed to withdraw her complaint in respect of part nine of her request. The Commissioner’s decision is that parts one to eight of the request can be aggregated for costs purposes as they follow an overarching theme and that to provide the information would exceed the appropriate limit. He has not therefore considered whether or not the public authority was correct in neither confirming nor denying information is held in respect of parts two to eight of the request. The complaint is not upheld.
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:36:31 GMT

FS50300275

The complainant requested recorded information about her late husband's death. The public authority replied that it held no relevant recorded information. It maintained its position in its internal review. The Commissioner has carefully considered this case and has found, on the balance of probabilities, that no relevant recorded information was held at the date of the request. He therefore upholds the public authority's position. He has however found a procedural breach of section 10(1) as the public authority failed to provide a response within the statutory timescales, but requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:40:04 GMT

ICO Press Releases

Yorkshire Building Society takes action after customers’ details are stolen

DSG Retail customer credit agreements found in skip

Sensitive medical records left at bus stop

ICO statement on Google StreetView

ICO defends privacy interest over benefit crackdown

Get the inside story on your exam results under the Data Protection Act

ICO launches campaign to ensure private investigators notify

ICO statement on the assessment of Google's WiFi data

ICO takes tougher approach to FOI enforcement

Information rights go centre stage

Birmingham Children’s Hospital found in breach of privacy rules

Over 9,000 child details put at risk by councils

New rules for privacy online

Parents can snap away at this year’s sports day

ICO statement on European Commission call about UK data protection

Confidential personal information stolen from Kent Police

Action taken after IPCC fails to respond to FOI requests

Poor data security in the NHS