Latest decision notices

A few interesting DNs here, though most are still fairly procedural rather than exemptions considerations.

A few worth looking at are: the Calderdale Council case (S40 - Data Protection interaction) and Northants Police Speed cameras case (Section 31 (prejudice to Law Enforcement) and Section 38 (Health and Safety) exemptions : "While the Commissioner recognises that there is a public interest in informing the debate about adequacy of signage for speed cameras, he does not believe that the release of the requested information would inform that debate. He believes that there is a stronger public interest in avoiding the likely increased risk to the health and safety of any individual and the likely increase of non-compliance with road traffic laws. The Commissioner is also persuaded that the release of the requested information would undermine Northants Police’s policy of intermittent activation of speed cameras. This policy is based on the premise that the risk of enforcement is as strong a deterrent as the certainty of enforcement. This policy is more cost effective than permanent activation of speed cameras because less speeding fines are issued and less administrative costs incurred.."

Case Ref: FAC0070222
Date: 28/11/05
Public Authority: The Security Industry Authority (SIA)
Summary: The complainant twice made a specific request for information from the SIA, who did not respond within 20 working days. In addition, it did not respond fully to the specific requests, instead duplicating information readily available on its website. Therefore, the SIA have also failed to provide advice and assistance to the complainant, in breach of s.16 of the Act. However, the SIA did later provide the information requested so the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld; s.16 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FAC0070222


Case Ref: FS50075959
Date: 25/11/05
Public Authority: Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Summary: On 28/03/05 the complainant submitted a request to the CPS, in 23 parts, concerning a particular type of speed camera. The complainant made a further request for information on 20/04/05. The CPS did not respond until 03/10/05, outside of the statutory time limit, when it provided a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Given that this response has been given, the Information Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of the Act/EIR and Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50075959


Case Ref: FS50075953
Date: 25/11/05
Public Authority: London Borough of Brent
Summary: The complainant made a request for several pieces of information relating to the disposal of a property leased from Brent Council, including 2 particular letters. Brent Council informed the complainant that they were unable to supply the two letters because it did not hold them, although the complainant maintained that these letters were in their possession. However, investigations by this office have found that there is no evidence to support this claim and the Commissioner is satisfied that the London Borough of Brent do not hold these letters.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50075953


Case Ref: FS50068019
Date: 25/11/05
Public Authority: The Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise (The Adjudicator's Office)
Summary: The complainant made an information request to the Adjudicator's Office relating to the Adjudicator's Office Service Level Agreement. The information was not provided because the Adjudicator's Office said that it did not hold any of the requested details, a view the complainant challenged. The complainant also believed that the Adjudicator's Office should have provided him with advice and assistance under s.16 of the Act that would have allowed him to frame his request in such a way that he would have received the information. After investigation the Commissioner is satisfied that the Adjudicator's Office does not hold the information. In relation to the Service Level Agreement there was no advice or assistance that could have been offered that have led to the complainant receiving the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld; s.16 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50068019


Case Ref: FS50068973
Date:24/11/05
Public Authority: Calderdale Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Council relating to the recruitment of social workers from Australia and New Zealand. Some of the information requested by the complainant was released but the Council declined to disclose the names of the officers who went abroad, citing section 40 (personal data). It also refused to disclose other details citing section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner decided that the names of the officers did constitute personal data but disclosing those names would not breach any of the data protection principles, therefore the exemption provided by section 40 (2) was not applicable in this case. In relation to section 42 the Commissioner decided the legal advice was covered by legal professional privilege but this case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.40 - Complaint Upheld; s.42 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50068973


Case Ref: FS50066050
Date: 24/11/05
Public Authority: Chief Officer of Northamptonshire Police ("Northants Police")
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to speeding offences recorded by the speed camera at Kelmarsh on the A508. Northants Police refused to provide this information citing the Section 31 (prejudice to Law Enforcement) and Section 38 (Health and Safety) exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act duty to disclose. Northants Police further argued that the public interest in maintaining these exemptions outweighed the public interest in disclosing the requested information. The Commissioner agrees with the exemptions applied in this case and has considered the public interest arguments. It is believed that there is a stronger public interest in this case in maintaining the two exemptions cited.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.31 - Complaint Not Upheld; FOI s.38 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50066050


Case Ref: FS50074578
Date: 24/11/05
Public Authority: Department of Trade and Industry
Summary: The complainant requested copies of various bankruptcy orders, to which the public authorities informed the complainant that the information was not held. The Commissioner is satisfied that this was communicated to the complainant and furthermore, that the duty to advise and assist under section 16 was adhered to.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50074578


Case Ref: FS50065750
Date:24/11/05
Public Authority: Department of Work and Pensions
Summary: The complainant made a number of requests for information from the Child Support Agency (CSA) - part of the Department of Work and Pensions - on three separate dates. The complainant alleged that the CSA failed to provide him with all the information requested and that the information was not provided within 20 working days. The Commissioner has decided that two of these requests were in fact requests for his own personal data and therefore exempt under section 40(1) of the Act. A request was also made for a copy of the CSA's publication scheme which the Commissioner has decided is accessible by other means and therefore exempt under section 21 of the Act. The Commissioner also considers that one of the questions was not a valid FOI request. However, the CSA did fail to respond to one of the complainant's requests within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Not Upheld; FOI s.10 Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50065750


Case Ref: FS50068389
Date:24/11/05
Public Authority: Greater Manchester Police (GMP)
Summary: The complainant requested details of policies in place at GMP. The request was not responded to by GMP until the Information Commissioner's Office made contact and a response was sent thereafter. A Decision Notice was therefore issued with regard to GMP's failure to respond within the statutory 20 working day period.
Section of Act & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50068389


Case Ref: FS50073295
Date: 24/11/05
Public Authority: Great Ness and Little Ness Parish Council
Summary: The complainant requested copies of Parish Council minutes and Newsletters. The Parish Council provided these but did so outside the 20 working day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50073295


Case Ref: FS50084412
Date: 24/11/05
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Home Office on 9/3/05 to request a copy of a particular review. The Home Office sent acknowledgement letters on 23/3/05 and 16/5/05, however, they failed within the statutory 20 working day limit to; confirm or deny whether the specified information was held, communicate the specified information and/or issue a notice refusing to provide the specified information. In not correctly notifying the complainant of the need for an extension to the time limit to answer the request, the Home office is found to be in breach of section 10 and section 17. A final response to the request was made on 10/11/05, where some information was provided and other items were withheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50084412


Case Ref: FS50076641
Date: 17/11/05
Public Authority: Bretforton Parish Council
Summary: The complainant wrote to the Council on 17/01/05 requesting information relating to specific meetings, procedures and statements. The Council responded telling the complainant that the request had been 'forwarded to their legal advisors'. The complainant sent further letters reiterating the original request but did not receive a response from the Council in accordance with the Act. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the Council supplied the information requested on 2/9/05.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI s.1 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.10 - Complaint Upheld; FOI s.17 - Complaint Upheld.
Full Transcript of Decision Notice FS50076641