Information Commissioners Office News

The complainant requested information which included a breakdown of the staff costs involved in the production of the ‘Newham Mag’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Newham (‘the council’) does not hold the requested information. No further action is required.

The complainant requested photographs taken of speed camera sites from Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”). The council said that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly refused to respond to the request because it was vexatious. He does not require the council to take any steps.

The complainant requested the names of the journalists that were identified by the ICO in Operation Motorman, whose generic details were provided in its What Price Privacy? report. The ICO confirmed that it held this information, but argued that it was exempt by virtue of section 40(2) [the ‘third party personal data’ exemption]. The Commissioner finds that the ICO correctly withheld the information by virtue of section 40(2). He has also found that the information could also be correctly withheld by virtue of section 44(1). He requires no remedial steps to be taken.

The complainant wrote to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and requested a full list of all Veterinary practices listed as Tier 2 and 3 hospitals in the UK. He did not receive a response within 20 working days and referred the case to the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). After the Commissioner’s intervention, a response was issued. The complainant asked the Commissioner to issue a decision notice to record the unacceptable delays that he experienced. The Commissioner finds that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons breached section 10(1) because it failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOIA in 20 working days. It also breached sections 17(1) and 17(1)(b) in failing to issue a complete refusal notice within the same time period. He does not require any remedial steps to be taken because an appropriate response has now been issued.

The complainant made a request to the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for a list of all individuals, or any other entities, that have received copies of a particular letter from Chris Huhne to George Osborne. The DECC provided the complainant with a list of individuals and entities to which it had distributed the letter to. The complainant does not consider that the DECC has provided him with all of the information it holds relevant to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DECC has provided the complainant with all of the information it holds relevant to the scope of this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.

The complainant has requested a copy of a review ordered by Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) into the management of the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), and any correspondence, documents and/or meeting notes related to the preparation and consideration of the review. The DCLG applied exceptions to withhold the information on the basis that the information was internal communications, and that it contained information which is subject to legal professional privilege which would adversely affect the course of justice if it was disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DCLG has complied with its obligations under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner does not require the DCLG to take any steps.

The complainant has requested information relating to the ongoing negotiations between Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) and the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC formerly known as the London Development Agency) over the sale or exchange of a piece of land owned by LVRPA known as the Eastern Land. The Commissioner has considered LVRPA’s application of regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to the remaining withheld information and he has decided that it does apply in this case. He also considers the public interest in favour of disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining this exception. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken.

The complainant requested a draft report together with any communications with the Chief Executive relating to Harborne Clock Tower in Birmingham. The council had paid substantial amounts of money to private contractors for scaffolding surrounding the tower for an extended period of time due to health and safety concerns and the council then made a decision to sell the Clock Tower as surplus to requirements. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has correctly applied the exception for unfinished documents to the draft report. He has also decided that the exception for internal communications applies to the communications with the Chief Executive.

The complainant has requested to view a file and a pre-application documentation relating to a planning application. The council allowed the complainant to view the relevant file however the complainant subsequently found that documents which he considered important to his case had not been included within it at the time that he viewed and copied documents from the file. The council also failed to include the information on a CD ROM which it subsequently sent to the complainant. It did however disclose this to him after the complainant wrote again requesting the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Babergh District Council has breached the EIR in that it did not provide the complainant with access to all of the relevant information within 20 working days of receiving his request for information. However the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as the council subsequently provided the information to the complainant.