MP Info News from the Information Commissioner's Office

home

The Queen's speech

Down load this for your web site from here

Latest Parliamentary Debates

Down load this for your web site from here

Latest Public Bills Debates

All MPs and Lords
Every Constituency

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

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, 12 Mar 2010 13:04:19 GMT

Information Commissioner urges political parties and candidates to stick to privacy rules

Political parties and candidates need to understand important privacy rules when promoting themselves to voters – and keep to them, Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, will say in a speech today.
Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:03:07 GMT

Information Commissioner’s Office puts a value on data protection

Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, is urging organisations to put a value on personal information and invest in privacy protection. At the Data Protection Officer Conference in Manchester today the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) will launch ‘The Privacy Dividend’ report which provides organisations with a financial case for data protection best practice.
Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:13:07 GMT

The ICO’s statement regarding the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s report

The Information Commissioner’s Office has issued a statement regarding the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s report.
Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:33:55 GMT

ATL agrees to improve information security after thousands of union members’ personal details are stolen

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has found the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) in breach of the Data Protection Act after a laptop and memory stick were reported lost or stolen, containing the personal details of over 6,000 union members.
Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:27:28 GMT

ICO to help keep Vale of Glamorgan children safe online

Stanwell School in Penarth has joined forces with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to educate children in the Vale of Glamorgan to stay safe online as part of a new national initiative called the ‘i in online’, which is officially launched on Data Protection Day 2010 (28 January).
Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:29:58 GMT

ICO to help keep Linlithgow children safe online

Donaldson’s School in Linlithgow has joined forces with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to educate children and young people to stay safe online as part of a new national initiative called ‘the i in online’, which is officially launched on Data Protection Day 2010 (28 January).
Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:20:34 GMT

ICO to help keep Belfast children safe online

Lagan College in Belfast has joined forces with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to educate children to stay safe online as part of a new national initiative called the ‘i in online’, which is officially launched on Data Protection Day 2010 (28 January).
Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:15:44 GMT

ICO to help keep Cheshire children safe online

Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has joined forces with a new national initiative called the ‘i in online’, which is officially launched on Data Protection Day 2010 (28 January), to educate children in Cheshire to stay safe online.
Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:08:39 GMT

Report data breaches or risk tougher sanctions, warns the ICO

Over 800 data security breaches have been reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in just over two years, the privacy watchdog announces today. The ICO is warning that organisations may face tougher sanctions if they fail to report security breaches which subsequently come to light.
Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:19:34 GMT

ICO statement on trading of Ladbrokes customers’ personal data

Yesterday's Mail on Sunday reported that the details of millions of gamblers have been offered for sale to the Mail on Sunday. The Daily Mail handed all the details over to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and alerted Ladbrokes of the security breach. The ICO has issued a statement.
Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:34:53 GMT

Privacy watchdog takes action after thousands of health records are stolen

Mark Hackett, the Chief Executive of Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust (SUHT), has made a formal commitment to improve data security after the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) found SUHT in breach of the Data Protection Act.
Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:17:43 GMT

Social work records found in second-hand filing cabinet

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has found Lancashire County Council in breach of the Data Protection Act after social work records containing sensitive personal data relating to several individuals were found in a filing cabinet purchased second-hand by a member of the public. The Council has now signed an Undertaking promising to implement a formal written procedure for the removal or disposal of any office furniture or equipment.
Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:59:40 GMT

ICO publishes guidance on going to court in Northern Ireland to enforce their information rights

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published new guidance to help individuals in Northern Ireland take a claim to court under the Data Protection Act.
Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:07:04 GMT

ICO statement on Guardian newspaper correction

The Guardian newspaper has corrected an inaccurate article. Monday’s Guardian ('Campbell had Iraq dossier changed to fit US claims', 11 January, page 7) noted that the Information Commissioner accidentally released documents to a reporter. This was incorrect and the Guardian’s correction appears in today’s paper and online.
Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:49:05 GMT

Keep an eye on your credit file and avoid financial problems

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is urging consumers to ensure that their credit reference file is accurate and up to date in 2010. Millions of consumers will use credit to help them through the year and it is essential that they make sure the information accessed by lenders is accurate. If the content of an individual’s credit reference file is wrong or out of date, banks, shops and catalogue companies could turn down their request for credit.
Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:18:30 GMT

Data breaches to incur up to £500,000 penalty

New powers, designed to deter personal data security breaches, are expected to come into force on 6 April 2010. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) will be able to order organisations to pay up to £500,000 as a penalty for serious breaches of the Data Protection Act. The ICO has produced statutory guidance about how it proposes to use this new power, which has been approved by the Secretary of State for Justice, and has been laid before Parliament today.
Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:42:45 GMT

Action taken after personal details found in waste bins

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has found Bellgrange Mortgages and Insurance Services Ltd in breach of the Data Protection Act after clients’ details were found in two large waste bins intended for the use of local residents. The organisation, based in Stanmore, has signed an official Undertaking to improve data security.
Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:21:36 GMT

Physical restraint methods used against children should be made public

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has decided that it is in the public interest to disclose details about the methods used to restrain children and young people in secure training centres. The restraint methods include so-called distraction techniques which can involve deliberately inflicting pain on children.
Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:09:19 GMT

Information Commissioner intervenes to improve internal review process

Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, has used his powers to secure improvements in the way two public bodies conduct internal reviews under the Freedom of Information Act. In line with the Information Commissioner’s enforcement strategy, Christopher Graham has issued practice recommendations to the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and Cardiff County Council.
Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:21:28 GMT

Shropshire Council found in breach of the Data Protection Act

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has found Shropshire Council in breach of the Data Protection Act following the loss of an unencrypted memory stick containing sensitive information relating to a large number of adult social care clients and members of staff.
Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:09:30 GMT

Northern Ireland’s Department of Finance and Personnel agrees to improve data security

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has found Northern Ireland’s Department of Finance and Personnel in breach of the Data Protection Act after approximately 37,000 people’s personal details were stolen. Stephen Peover, the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Finance and Personnel, has signed a formal Undertaking to improve data security.
Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:05:44 GMT

The 'Surveillance Society' Four Years On

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is inviting interested parties to bid to produce an analysis of developments in surveillance and data collection since the report, A Surveillance Society, which was produced for the ICO in 2006. The new analysis of how surveillance affects us all in our everyday lives will accompany the Information Commissioner’s 2010 report to Parliament on the state of surveillance.
Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:24:07 GMT

Birmingham school improves data protection

Waseley Hills High School and Sixth Form Centre in Birmingham has taken remedial action after the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) found it in breach of the Data Protection Act after the theft of personal data of over 1,000 pupils and staff.
Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:50:01 GMT

ICO Decision Notices

Decision notice
Copyright 2006 Information Commissioner's Office
Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:04:19 GMT

FS50272235

The complainant made a request in May 2009 for information relating to the 1981 hunger strike in the Maze prison. The Northern Ireland Office (“NIO”) acknowledged the request and subsequently replied in June 2009 that section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) applied to some of the information. It went on to inform the complainant that it would carry out a public interest determination within a target timeframe. The Commissioner finds that sections 17(1) and 10(1) of the Act were breached at this stage as the public authority failed to inform the complainant that all the requested information was subject to an exemption within 20 working days. Furthermore, where the NIO stated that section 27 did apply, it did not specify the relevant sub-section of the exemption or give reasons setting out why the exemption was engaged, thereby breaching sections 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c). The NIO subsequently adjusted its time frame to provide a substantive response on a number of separate occasions. The Commissioner has found the delay in carrying out a public interest assessment to be in breach of section 17(3)(b) of the Act. He therefore requires the public authority to issue a notice explaining why section 27 is engaged and where it believes the balance of the public interest lies. If the NIO concludes that the balance of the public interest favours disclosure, the requested information should be provided to the complainant.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:24:16 GMT

FS50234378

The complainant requested information from the Local Government Ombudsman (the “LGO”) about a complaint involving Stevenage Borough Council. The public authority claimed that section 32(2) of the Local Government Act 1974 applied to this information. It therefore considered that it was under no duty to disclose the information courtesy of section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) and regulation 12(5)(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the LGO has agreed to the release of one document. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that the remaining withheld information is exempt under section 44 of the Act. Nevertheless, he does find the LGO breached section 17(1) in its handling of the request.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:36:27 GMT

FS50219758

The complainant requested information relating to the proscription of the Baluchistan Liberation Army. The Home Office refused the request citing sections 23 (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matter), 27 (international relations), 35 (formulation of government policy) and 42 (legal professional privilege). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office additionally cited section 24 (national security). The Commissioner finds that some information was incorrectly withheld under section 27 and 35 and orders its disclosure. He also finds the public authority in breach of sections 1(1)(a) and (b), 10(1), 17(1) and 17(1)(b) and (c).
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:32:36 GMT

FS50207333

The complainant requested information concerning the frequency and cost of involvement of locum legal advisers in Magistrates’ Courts. The public authority refused the request under section 12(1) of the Act as it estimated that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the cost limit of £600. The Commissioner finds that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the £600 limit and so section 12(1) of the Act was applied correctly. However, the Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with its duty under section 16(1) of the Act to provide advice and assistance in that it did not provide advice to the complainant as to how to refine his request to bring it within the cost limit. The public authority is required to provide advice to the complainant on refining his request.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:28:46 GMT

FS50203056

The complainant made a number of requests to Wiltshire County Council between 4 May 2008 and 26 May 2008. The Council refused to provide any information requested, citing section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (the “Act”). The Council subsequently applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR in respect of three of these requests, and section 14(1) of the Act in respect of the remainder. The Commissioner concluded that it was reasonable for the Council to apply section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner also concluded that the Council had correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. However, the Commissioner found that the Council breached section 17(7) of the Act as it failed to issue a notice containing particulars of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Commissioner also found that the Council breached regulation 11 of the EIR for failing to conduct a proper reconsideration, and regulation 14 of the EIR for not issuing a refusal under EIR during its handling of three of the requests.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:16:52 GMT

FS50283831

The complainant submitted a request to Bolton Council (‘the Council’) for the names and job titles of officers who had authorised payments listed in invoices. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) of the Act in failing to comply with section 1(1)(b) within twenty working days.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:00:30 GMT

FS50259228

The complainant submitted an information request to the Council for the names of all staff empowered to issue cautions under Part G of the Council’s scheme of delegation. The Council responded by releasing the names of Chief Officers only. It refused to disclose other staff names, as it considered this information was exempt from disclosure under section 40 of the Act. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the remaining information was subsequently released. In terms of the handling of this request, the Commissioner found that the Council failed to comply with section 1(1)(b) of the Act, as it did not provide all the requested information within the statutory time for compliance. He also concluded that the Council breached section 10(1) of the Act in failing to comply with section 1(1) (b) within twenty working days. In addition, the Commissioner found that the Council had breached sections 17(1) and 17(7) of the Act by failing to cite and explain the exemption claimed, failing to inform the complainant of his right to request an internal review, failing to inform the complainant of his right to refer a complaint to the Commissioner under section 50 of the Act and for failing to issue its Refusal Notice within twenty working days of the receipt of the request.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:54:48 GMT

FS50248774

The complainant made a request for information to the General Medical Council for copies of exhibits presented to the Fitness to Practise Panel in the case of a named doctor. The request was refused under sections 40(2) and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and the application of exemptions was upheld at the internal review stage. The Commissioner considers the section 40(2) exemption was correctly applied and therefore he requires no further action to be taken in respect of this request.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:51:56 GMT

FS50246664

The complainant requested information that comprised of an internal legal advice and related documents generated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The FSA confirmed it held the requested information but relied on section 42 (legal professional privilege) not to communicate it to the complainant. The Commissioner finds that section 42 is engaged and that the public interest test favours the maintenance of the exemption.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:49:02 GMT

FS50140182

The complainant made a series of 167 requests to the Ministry of Justice for information relating to various issues regarding the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The public authority refused the requests under section 12(1) on the grounds that the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit of £600 for central government departments. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority informed the Commissioner that it also considered that the requests were vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has found that section 14(1) applies and that the public authority was not obliged to respond to the complainant’s requests. However, the Commissioner also found that by failing to inform the complainant that it was relying on section 14(1) within 20 working days of receiving the requests, it breached section 17(5) of the Act.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:46:24 GMT

FS50265735

The complainant made 7 requests to the BBC for a series of information relating to its handling of his complaint about an edition of the programme ‘Panorama’. The BBC stated that some information was not held, some was outside the scope of the Act, other material constituted the complainant’s personal data and was therefore exempt under section 40(1) and for the remainder refused to comply on the basis that the cost of locating and retrieving relevant information would exceed the section 12(1) limit. The Commissioner’s investigation and decision is limited to requests 1 and 2. In view of two High Court decisions handed down on 2 October 2009 the BBC amended its original position and argued that all of the information relevant to requests 1 and 2 was outside the scope of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC correctly determined that the information relevant to requests 1 and 2 is all held to a significant extent for the purposes of art, journalism or literature and therefore the BBC is not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:33:54 GMT

FS50262410

The complainant requested information concerning the Council’s purchase of a block of properties. He wanted to ensure that the relevant individuals who sold them had been fully compensated. He requested the details of the sellers, the address of the property, the amount paid for the property and the amount paid in compensation. The Council originally applied sections 21, 41 and 43. It upheld its application of section 21 in its internal review. During the Commissioner’s investigation further information was released, leaving only the individual amounts of compensation and the details of the sellers outstanding. The complainant then agreed to withdraw his complaint about the details of the sellers, but still wished to acquire the amount of compensation paid against each property. The public authority then agreed to provide a list of the addresses with a tick against those for which it had paid compensation. For the remaining information (the amount paid in compensation to each property owner), the Commissioner has found that section 40(2) was applied correctly. He did not go on to consider section 41(1). He did find procedural breaches of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1) 17(1) 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c), but requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:29:31 GMT

FS50248766

The complainant made a request for information to the General Medical Council for copies of exhibits presented to the Professional Conduct Committee in the case of a named doctor. The request was refused under sections 40(2) and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and the application of exemptions was upheld at the internal review stage. The Commissioner considers the exemptions were correctly applied and therefore he requires no further action to be taken in respect of this case.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:26:16 GMT

FS50245527

The complainant made two requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the University of Plymouth (the “University”). The first request was for copies of [named employee’s] correspondence relating to the Climate Wars TV programme, including, but not restricted to, correspondence with two named individuals. The second request was for confirmation as to whether a [named employee] was on unpaid leave of absence during the filming of this programme. The University stated that it did not hold information relating to the first request under section 1(1)(a) of the Act. It explained that the [named employee’s] involvement in the programme was in a purely personal capacity and not as an ‘employee’ of the University. The Commissioner considers that the University does not hold information relevant to the first request under section 1(1)(a) of the Act as under section 3(2)(a) the information is only held on behalf of another person. In relation to the second request, the University refused to provide this information as it stated that it was exempt under section 40(2). The Commissioner considers that section 40(2) was correctly engaged in this case. The Commissioner does however consider that the University breached section 1(1)(a), section 10(1) and section 17(1)(b) and (c) in its handling of the requests.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:19:16 GMT

FS50242131

The complainant requested the exact salary details for various senior management posts within the North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service (NYFRS) between 2004 and 2009. The council refused to disclose this citing section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It said that the information was the managers’ personal data and processing it would be unfair. However, it did point out that £10,000 salary bands were already published for these posts which it believed represented a reasonable balance of the legitimate public interest in the use of public funds and the individuals’ right to privacy. Following negotiations with the Commissioner, North Yorkshire Council (the council) on behalf of NYFRS agreed to disclose the salary bands of the management posts concerned in increments of £5,000. The Commissioner has decided that the specific information requested is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the Act.
Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:30:47 GMT

FS50237119

The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (MHRA) for information it had redacted from pages 9 to 31 of an Assessment Report setting out the findings of a study conducted on the issue of mortality rates in Linezolid treated patients. The MHRA refused to disclose the requested information upon reliance of the exemptions contained at sections 40(2) and 41(1) of the Act. The Commissioner considers that the MHRA correctly applied the exemption contained at section 41(1) of the Act to withhold the requested information. As the Commissioner found that section 41(1) of the Act was correctly engaged he did not go on to consider the MHRA’s application of section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner does however consider that the MHRA breached sections 1(1)(a) and (b), section 10(1) and section 17(1) in its handling of this request.
Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:26:10 GMT

FS50227053

The complainant requested copies of the citations for ten individuals who had been awarded the King’s Medal for Courage in the Cause of Freedom. The Cabinet Office argued that this information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that in the circumstances of this case section 23(1) does provide a basis for withholding the information requested by the complainant.
Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:22:02 GMT

FS50227348

The complainant requested the answers volunteered by serving judges in 1998 and those subsequently appointed on the issue of Masonic membership. The public authority applied section 40(2) to this information because it explained that processing the data in this way would not accord with the first data protection principle as it would be unfair. It also explained that it believed this information was sensitive personal data and that there were no relevant schedule 3 conditions. The public authority upheld its position in its internal review. The Commissioner has determined that he does not believe that the information constitutes sensitive personal data. He has found that the disclosure of the information would accord with the first data protection principle and would not contravene any other data protection principles. Section 40(2) was therefore incorrectly applied. He has therefore found breaches of section 1(1)(b) and 10(1). He orders all of the relevant information to be disclosed to the complainant within 35 calendar days.
Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:08:11 GMT

FS50216168

The complainant requested information from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) about the tax categories of people for whom security is a higher priority. HMRC refused the request citing the exemptions at sections 23 (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 38 (health and safety). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, HMRC additionally cited sections 40 (personal information) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) in relation to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the exemptions at sections 23 and 44 are engaged in relation to some of the withheld information. As the information withheld under section 40 was also withheld under section 44, having found section 44 engaged, the Commissioner has not considered the application of section 40. The Commissioner does not find the exemptions at sections 36 and 38 engaged and therefore orders release of the information withheld only under these exemptions. The Commissioner has also identified a series of procedural shortcomings on the part of the public authority relating to delay (sections 10(1) and 17(1)).
Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:46:51 GMT

FS50209826

The complainant requested information about whether the Cabinet Office or any of its Agencies use pseudonyms as a point of contact with the public. If yes, various other pieces of related information were also requested such as how many such names are in use, where, what names and who authorised their use. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request and cited the exemption provided by section 38(2) (health and safety). The Commissioner decided the Cabinet Office had breached section 1(1)(a) by failing to notify the complaint in writing whether it held information of the description specified in the request and now the Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with that confirmation or denial.
Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:55:06 GMT

FS50204620

The complainant made a number of information requests to Sport England on 4 March 2008 for information concerning Sport England’s dealings with Baseball Softball UK (BSUK) and its successor organisation. Some information was disclosed but other information was withheld on the basis of exemptions in sections 21, 40 and 41 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that while Sport England was correct to apply sections 21 and 41, he was not satisfied with the application of section 40 to two job contracts. The Commissioner has ordered Sport England to release the contracts, subject to a minor redaction. The Commissioner has also noted the difficulty of establishing the details of the handling of these requests because of gaps in Sport England’s record keeping.
Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:55:59 GMT

FS50202112

The complainant requested a copy of a project licence or licences, involving certain, specified, animal experimentation. This was refused under section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act as the disclosure is prevented under another enactment, section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA). A previous case, for similar project licences, was also refused under section 44 of the Act, and that refusal was upheld by the Court of Appeal, and the Commissioner has therefore decided that the information in this case was correctly withheld by reference to section 44. The Home Office did, however, breach sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the Freedom of Information Act.
Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:51:39 GMT

FS50200310

The complainant requested information about traffic restriction orders and road signs on roads around Balcombe. The council provided some information but stated that it did not hold, or could not find other information which he had requested. The complainant asked the council to review its position. The council responded claiming that the information was exempt because of the cost which would entail searching further for information it did not believe it holds. The Commissioner wrote to the council and explained that in his view the information was environmental information and that the requests should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The council agreed with this and reconsidered its position. It then responded indicating that the exception in regulation 12(4)(b) applied as it had already spent in excess of 33 hours responding to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not able to apply regulation 12(4)(b) because it would not be manifestly unreasonable to search further for the requested information in this instance.
Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:43:35 GMT

FS50198232

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the National Audit Office for documents relating to a report it issued into the handling of staff grievances at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. The public authority disclosed a quantity of information falling within the scope of the request but refused to disclose additional information by relying on the exemptions section 33(2) (Audit functions), section 36(2)(b)(ii), (Free and frank exchange of views), section 40(2) (Personal information) and section 43(2) (Commercial interests). The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and has found that that the exemptions section 33(2), section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 40(2) are all engaged. However the Commissioner found that for some of the information withheld under section 33(2) and all of the information withheld under section 36(2)(b)(ii) the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to release this information to the complainant within 35 calendar days of the date of this notice. The Commissioner also found that in its handling of the request the public authority breached section 17(1) and section 17(1)(b) (Refusal of request).
Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:38:44 GMT

FS50191352

The complainant made a request for information about an investigation in which the Ministry of Defence (the “public authority”) was involved. The information requested, which was a report written by British Telecom (“BT”) and passed to the public authority, was originally withheld under the exemptions in section 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) and 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). This was subsequently amended to sections 30 and 41 (information provided in confidence). During the investigation the public authority also ‘reserved the right’ to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) and amended the subsections of section 30 that it was relying on. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 30 is engaged, but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh that in disclosure in relation to some of the information. He finds that section 41 is not engaged in respect of the remaining information. The complaint is therefore partly upheld.
Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:32:08 GMT

FS50189328

The complainant made three requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EMAS) between August and December 2007 for various pieces of information supplied to Vale First Responders (VFR) from EMAS; copies of EMAS’s board minutes for July 2007 and September 2007; and finally, he specifically requested the minutes of meetings relating to discussions of Community Responder Schemes (CFR) and a particular incident involving VFR and its subsequent follow-up. Some information was provided to the complainant but after considering the case the Commissioner is satisfied that the outstanding information requested is not held by EMAS. Furthermore the Commissioner considers that section 10(1) of the Act was breached as EMAS did not comply with section 1(1)(a) within 20 working days of the request.
Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:00:13 GMT

FS50280638

The complainant requested the details of all complaints about a named judge, including their nature, details and results of investigations carried out. The public authority applied section 40(5) and neither confirmed nor denied whether information was held in respect to this request. It did this because it felt that confirming or denying whether information would be held would expose personal data of the named individual and this would have been unfair. The Commissioner has considered this case and has determined that the public authority’s position is correct. However, he did find a breach of section 17(1)(b). He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:29:10 GMT

FS50265616

The complainant requested information about how the Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation was initiated by HMRC. HMRC refused to disclose the information by virtue of section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information 2000 Act (“the Act”). The public authority argued that section 23(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA) gave it an absolute exemption. The Commissioner finds that the statutory bar was correctly applied and agrees with the public authority’s reliance on section 44(1)(a). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:19:07 GMT

FS50265162 and FS50274024

The complainant made two separate requests to VOSA and modified those requests on the telephone. All his requests concerned information about a named company and in particular information connected to maintenance investigations and the prohibition notices served on it (PG9s). The public authority eventually provided complete copies of the 2007 and 2008 maintenance reports. The Commissioner finds breaches of section 1(1) (b) and 10(1) in not providing this information within twenty working days of receiving the requests for information. The outstanding information consisted of the PG9 notices themselves, to which the public authority applied sections 43(2) and 31(1)(g). The Commissioner has determined that the public authority has applied section 31(1)(g) correctly. He finds breaches of sections 17 in failing to cite an exemption on which it has later relied. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:20:33 GMT

FS50259951

The complainant requested information about the details of empty homes within the borough of Tower Hamlets including their addresses. The public authority explained that it felt that sections 31(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) applied to all the relevant information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority also claimed that section 40(2) applied. The Commissioner considered the case and during the course of his investigation all of the relevant information except for the addresses was disclosed. He has determined that section 31(1)(a) can be applied correctly to those addresses. He has not been required to go on to consider sections 38(1)(b) or 40(2). He found some procedural breaches of sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) as the information that was provided during his investigation was not provided within twenty working days. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:08:14 GMT