Information Commissioners Office News

The complainant requested information from the Audit Commission concerning the recording of discussions held or not held between the Audit Commission and the following public bodies:i. Huntingdon District Councilii. Cambridgeshire County Counciliii. Cambridgeshire Constabularyiv. Ramsey Town Councilv. The Commission for Local Administration.The Audit Commission initially failed to respond within the required 20 working days and as such failed to meet the requirements set out in section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. With regards the information requested, the Audit Commission stated that it does not hold any information that falls within the terms of the request. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and is satisfied that the Audit Commission does not hold information covered by the scope of the request and therefore that it complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the Act.

The complainant requested from National Savings and Investments (“the public authority”) Premium Bond statistical information for each monthly draw from 1st January 1997 to 1st November 2007 that detailed prizes, Bonds and amounts distributed regionally both to customers within the United Kingdom and in reports to Her Majesty’s Treasury. The public authority disclosed some of the information it held, but also withheld some information under section 12(1) of the Act because the costs limit applied. The Commissioner investigated and has considered sections 12, 16 and 17 of the Act. He decided that although section 12(1) was applied correctly by the public authority it breached section 17 of the Act. In relation to section 16, the public authority provided reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant and actually exceeded what was technically expected of it under the Act. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by the public authority.

The complainant made a Freedom of Information Act request to the Ministry of Justice for a copy of the Tasker report, a detailed report into corruption and mismanagement at HMP Wandsworth. Subsequent to the Commissioner’s intervention, the main body of the Tasker report was provided to the complainant’s satisfaction, subject to minor redactions in respect of section 40(2). However, during the course of the investigation the Ministry of Justice identified that it held further information in the form of seven annexes to the main report, which had been withheld from the complainant. It was very slow to supply the Commissioner with copies of the annexes, and it failed to identify to him which exemptions it was applying in respect of them. The Commissioner concluded that the annexes had not been included within the scope of the Ministry of Justice’s consideration of the request. In failing to issue a valid refusal notice in respect of the withheld annexes, the Commissioner therefore finds that the Ministry of Justice breached the time limit in section 17(1) of the Act. This Decision Notice therefore requires the Ministry of Justice to issue a refusal notice in compliance with section 17(1) in respect of the annexes. If the Ministry of Justice concludes that no exemption applies or if the exemption in question is qualified and the balance of the public interest favours disclosing the information, the annexes should be provided to the complainant.

The complainant requested information from the ICO arising from a complaint he had made to the ICO under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. The complainant was provided with the recorded information the ICO held that answered the request. The complainant continued to consider that the ICO held more information than had been provided. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that no further recorded information is held which addresses the complainant’s request.

On 11 and 29 February 2008 the complainant made requests for information relating to the Cefn Croes Wind farm. The Welsh Assembly Government (‘Assembly Government’) originally refused the requests by virtue of regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR but later ceased to rely on that exception and sought to rely on section 12(4)(b). The Commissioner investigated and has determined that the Assembly Government was correct to refuse the requests by virtue of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. However, the Commissioner found a number of procedural breaches in relation to the way the requests were handled. On 15 July 2009, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the complainant refined her request. The Assembly Government also refused the refined request by virtue of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner investigated the handling of the refined request and has determined that the Assembly Government was correct to refuse the refined request by virtue of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner also found a number of procedural breaches in relation to the handling of the refined request.

The complainant made two requests to Exeter City Council on 20 December 2007 and 22 January 2008. The Council applied section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (the “Act”) and refused to provide any of the requested information. During his investigation, the Commissioner determined that part of the requested information fell under the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Council subsequently applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to that information, and section 14(1) of the Act to the remainder. The Commissioner concluded that it was reasonable for the Council to apply section 14(1) of the Act. This Commissioner also concluded that the Council had correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner found some procedural breaches in the way in which the Council handled the requests but requires no steps to be taken.

The complainant requested that the public authority provide her with the information generated by a complaint, regarding the development of the “Home Information Pack" legislation, made previously to the National Audit Office by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. The public authority declined to release the information it held by relying on section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and (c) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) are engaged and that the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemptions does outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner therefore did not go on to consider the applicability of section 36(2)(c).

The complainant requested information, including a briefing paper and a report, about gun crime. The Home Office claimed that the information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of sections 31 (law enforcement), 35 (the formulation and development of government policy) and section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Home Office additionally cited section 21 (accessible to applicant by other means). The Commissioner finds that some of the information is not exempt and orders its disclosure. The Commissioner also found a number of procedural breaches.

The complainant requested information relating to fraud in landed property. The Serious Fraud Office initially refused to disclose the information, citing section 21 (information accessible by other means) and section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement). In its internal review correspondence it referred to section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner is satisfied that it would exceed the cost limit for the Serious Fraud Office to comply with the request. However he identified procedural shortcomings on the part of the public authority relating to its provision of advice and assistance and in relation to its citing of section 12.