http://www.dpr.gov.uk./RSSFeeds/DecisionNotices.aspx Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:04:35 GMT Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:56:44 GMT en Copyright 2006 Information Commissioner's Office Sitecore CMS: http://www.sitecore.net. Sitecore RSS module: Sitecore.Modules.RSS, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null The complainant made a request for seven pieces of information relating to the Constabulary’s coat of arms and logo, the use of these; its policies regarding the recording of conversations; and for information about the Constabulary’s internet domain and service provider. The request was made during an on-going dispute between the complainant and Constabulary. During the course of the dispute members of the Constabulary were the subjects of several complaints. The complainant also made a significant number of information requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and the Data Protection Act. The Constabulary refused the complainant’s request under section 14 of the Act on the grounds that it was vexatious. It was drawn to this conclusion by the complainant’s stated intent to use the requested information to assist him in setting up a website publicising his grievances. The Commissioner has examined the complainant’s previous contact with the Constabulary. He considers that this request, together with the history of complaints and other information requests, constitutes a significant burden to the Constabulary. He also considers that the intent behind the request would have the effect of harassing the Constabulary. The Commissioner has concluded that the Constabulary’s application of section 14 was appropriate and does not uphold the complaint. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50157445.pdf Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:56:44 GMT a19327ba-1865-4163-9265-c0941d5b3b2d The complainant made 5 requests between April 2007 and June 2007 under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for information relating to the anti-depressant drug Seroxat. The MHRA deemed these requests vexatious in accordance with section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner considered these requests in the context and background in which they were made and has decided that the MHRA applied the Act correctly in refusing to comply with the requests under section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner has however found that the Trust breached section 17(5) of the Act as it did not state its reliance upon section 14(1) in relation to the requests labelled FOI 07/140 and FOI 07/142 within 20 working days of those requests being made. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50180689.pdf Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:16:27 GMT 410624fb-163f-4d65-afb7-56799157827b The complainant requested the full details of 22 non-safety recalls which were recorded on the public authority’s database in 2006. The public authority withheld the information by virtue of the exemptions contained in sections 41 and 43(2) of the Act. After considering the case, the Commissioner found that neither of the exemptions were engaged and ordered the public authority to disclose the requested information. He also found the public authority in breach of sections 1(1)(b), 17(1) and 17(3) of the Act. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50146033.pdf Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:53:05 GMT 69346094-f18a-466a-8993-12c5a544acdf The complainant requested information from the BBC regarding the number of TV detection devices, how often they are deployed and their technical specification. The BBC refused to disclose the information under Section 31(1) (a) (b) (d) and (g) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the information is exempt under section 31(1) (a) (b) and (g) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the information. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50154106.pdf Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:10:54 GMT c441b807-8467-4191-af61-4b27c48b3d6d The complainant submitted a series of requests to the National Audit Office (NAO) which were mainly focused on the origins of various figures contained in a value for money report into stroke care produced by the NAO. The complainant alleged that the NAO failed to respond to a number of these requests within 20 working days and that not all of the information falling within the scope of his requests was disclosed. The Commissioner has concluded that the NAO did not in fact hold any further information covered by the scope of most, but not all, of the requests. With regard the information that the Commissioner has established the NAO does hold but did not initially disclose to the complainant, the Commissioner has concluded that the NAO breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act by failing to disclose this information within 20 working days of receiving the requests. With regard to the requests where the Commissioner has concluded that the NAO does not hold any information, the NAO breached section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Act by failing to confirm or deny within 20 working days whether it held the information requested. During the course of this investigation the NAO argued that the further information which had been identified (a set of internal memos) was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 33. The Commissioner does not accept that section 33 is engaged in respect of the internal memos; however, during the closing stages of the Commissioner’s investigation the NAO provided this information to the complainant. In failing to provide the complainant with this information within 20 workings, the NAO committed a further breach of sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act. The public authority also failed to comply with section 17(1) by failing to provide a refusal notice citing section 33. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50180545.pdf Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:07:05 GMT 0d006566-4e4a-4e44-807b-9f2f5060554e The complainant requested a statement that had been provided by a named nurse to the public authority. The public authority responded in accordance with the provisions of section 1(1)(a) (it confirmed or denied it held the information requested). After considering the case, the Commissioner finds that the public authority was excluded from its duty to respond to the request under section 1(1)(a) by virtue of the provisions of section 40(5)(b)(i) (exclusion from the duty to confirm or deny a public authority holds third party personal data) because in responding to the request, it had to disclose information which constitutes the personal data of the named nurse. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps in relation to the complainant’s request. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50180310.pdf Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:03:40 GMT 91d35929-f5cc-4931-a793-f476126e7009 The complainant wrote to the Cabinet Office (“the public authority”) to request information regarding a Cabinet Committee that was formed in order to consider data sharing within the public sector. The public authority provided the complainant with some information but refused to disclose the minutes of meetings of the committee under section 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner considered the complaint and found that section 35 applies and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The public authority also refused to disclose the names of junior civil servants who attended the Committee by relying on section 40(2) of the Act and the Commissioner found that the public authority also correctly withheld this information. However, the Commissioner found that in its handling of the complainant’s request the public authority breached sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1) and 17(1)(c). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50177136.pdf Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:55:57 GMT ef7ca194-27b7-4d72-a2d1-096d17b4d499 The complainant requested details of the budget and operating costs of the council’s residential and nursing care homes. Some items of the requested information were supplied by the council but it withheld the operating costs by virtue of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the Act. The Commissioner decided that the exemption at section 43(2) was not engaged and ordered disclosure of the information. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50168782.pdf Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:24:21 GMT a2142ac8-d798-4929-8114-e39adb545a22 The complainant requested information about two investigations carried out by the public authority. In connection with the first of these, a 1970s fraud case, the Commissioner finds that the public authority is correct in stating that this information is not held, but that it breached section 1(1)(a) when earlier incorrectly suggesting that this information was held. In connection with the second of these, a 1980s murder investigation, the Commissioner finds that the public authority has applied the exemption provided by section 30(1) correctly. The Commissioner has also found that the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Act in its handling of the request. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50127256.pdf Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:14:09 GMT e60ab0af-d151-4d33-840b-f4a4792dc1d2 The complainant asked the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) for information held about the Cheltenham Children’s Home in relation to decisions made to authorise the broadcast of parts of a CSCI report, and the relevant CSCI policy and procedures. The Commissioner’s decision is that CSCI did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the Act. Under section 10 of the Act, CSCI should have responded within 20 working days of the request having been made. This it failed to do by a wide margin, a failure which merits criticism. However the Commissioner noted, and welcomed, the apology by CSCI and the steps taken to ensure that future requests for information are dealt with faster. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50108683.pdf Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:11:11 GMT 91231875-4795-4905-8cbf-e39d9196a609 The complainant made a request to Belfast Improved Housing Association (“BIH”) under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) on 31 May 2006 for access to all documents held and produced by BIH in relation to the development of sites at Crumlin Road Methodist Church and 237-247 Tennent Street. BIH did not provide the information as it stated that Housing Associations were not public authorities for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that BIH is a public authority within the meaning of Regulation 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d)(i) of the EIR. This Decision Notice requires BIH to either provide the complainant with the requested information or to issue a formal refusal notice, stating which exceptions (if any) under the EIR it believes to be applicable. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fer_0152607.pdf Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:28:28 GMT 213dd54c-1a81-4d3f-957b-c4fdd628b36a The complainant made a request to Wesley Housing Association (“Wesley”) under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) for access to all documents held and produced by Wesley in relation to the development of sites at Crumlin Road Methodist Church and 237-247 Tennent Street. Wesley did not provide the information as it stated that Housing Associations were not public authorities for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that Wesley is a public authority within the meaning of Regulation 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d)(i) of the EIR. This Decision Notice requires Wesley to either provide the complainant with the requested information or to issue a formal refusal notice, stating which exceptions (if any) under the EIR it believes to be applicable. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fer_149772.pdf Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:18:55 GMT db5f179a-ff3a-4253-9b64-9d23adf4c7ad The complainant made over forty requests for information from the FSA regarding Halifax PLC and Halifax Insurance Ireland Limited. The FSA responded to most of the questions but initially refused to answer three of the requests under sections 21, 31, 43 and 44. During the course of the investigation the FSA explained that it was now seeking to withhold the information under section 12 as to locate and retrieve the information would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the FSA were correct to rely on section 12 to withhold the information, however in failing to inform the complainant of its reliance on this exemption in the refusal notice the FSA breached the requirements of section 17(5) of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50130697.pdf Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:28:49 GMT 7033c006-2760-45bf-8c2b-d5487eaf38e2 http://www.dpr.gov.uk./Home/tools_and_resources/decision_notices/2008_10.aspx Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:36:42 GMT 0de4d53d-7a74-47fd-beb0-dacc83e678a9 The complainant requested minutes of the meetings of the cross party group on House of Lords reform. This request was refused under section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy). The Commissioner is satisfied that the exemption is engaged, and has decided that – notwithstanding that the withheld information relates to a matter of such significance as House of Lords reform - in all the circumstances of this case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner has attached particular weight to the on-going and unresolved nature of policy formulation in relation to House of Lords reform, the risks of disruption to progress, the nature and status of the cross party group, the expectations of confidentiality which covered its discussions and the strong possibility that it may be re-convened. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50196977.pdf Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:55:47 GMT 4295b36e-0a3d-4158-b6df-c5f69963e1f2 The complainant requested details of the disciplinary action taken against judges including their names, the reasons for the disciplinary action and dates. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to disclose this information under section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that section 40(2) is engaged and therefore the MOJ was not required to disclose the requested information. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50145985.pdf Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:13:36 GMT 1d55f1e3-d5fd-46f1-bf70-4402de38bfbf The complainant requested the standard operating procedures used by the public authority when testing for the use of performance enhancing substances by athletes. The public authority refused the request, citing sections 38(1)(a) (health and safety) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that the health of sports people would be likely to be endangered through disclosure and has upheld the public authority’s application of section 38(1)(a). However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the refusal notice issued by the public authority was inadequate and in breach of section 17. As the section 38(1)(a) conclusion covers the entirety of the information falling within the scope of the request, it has not been necessary for the Commissioner to reach any conclusion in respect to section 43(2). http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50125293.pdf Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:50:42 GMT 5c14943f-f63a-480c-8c40-808add17f21f The complainant requested all information held by the public authority relating to the discovery of a body in January 2006. The public authority initially refused the request under section 32 (court records) and stated that all relevant information had been passed to the Coroner. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the public authority issued a reconsidered response in which it refused the request under sections 30 (investigations), 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal information) and 44 (statutory prohibition). The Commissioner finds that the public authority was correct in refusing the request under section 30. As this applies to the information falling within the scope of the request in its entirety, no conclusion was formed in relation to the other exemptions cited by the public authority. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50124180.pdf Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:40:43 GMT 0d3df48c-af4c-4be1-be17-bf73e4437f5f The complainant requested copies of Evidence Forms completed during an inspection of St Patrick’s Primary School, Bristol. The public authority refused the request, citing sections 33 and 41. The Commissioner finds that section 33 is not engaged, primarily as a result of the public authority having previously notified participants in inspections that their contributions may be subject to disclosure through the Act. In respect of some of the information the Commissioner further finds that section 41 is not engaged. Having reached these conclusions on the exemptions cited by the public authority, the Commissioner has also considered section 40 and has concluded that some of the information in question constitutes personal data of various individuals, including teachers. The Commissioner finds that the exemptions provided by sections 40(1) and 40(2) are engaged in respect of some of the information constituting personal data. The public authority is required to disclose to the complainant the information identified to the public authority separately from this notice. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50123184.pdf Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:00:06 GMT 5a87ac2d-fc4e-4c47-b580-888281c5152a The complainant requested the names and addresses of respondents in Employment Tribunal applications. The public authority refused to disclose the information stating that it held the information on behalf of the Employment Tribunal and not in its own right. In the alternative the public authority relied on the exemption at section 36 of the Act to withhold the information. The Commissioner investigated and found that the information is held by the public authority in its own right and that the exemption at section 36 is engaged but the public interest in maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information. The Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to disclosure the information within 35 calendar days of this notice. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50080369.pdf Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:32:03 GMT b82f6e3d-c93a-44b1-a356-eee106447eaa The complainant requested internal documents relating to the drafting of a consultation document on employment tribunals and the name(s) of the individuals involved. The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) informed the complainant that aside from the information disclosed to him, no further documents are held relating to the drafting of the consultation document. BERR also refused to disclose the individuals name under section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and finds that no further information is held regarding the consultation document and that BERR were correct in the application of section 40 to the individual’s name. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50071188.pdf Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:19:38 GMT 2c9a9cbc-6741-45ce-a8c8-0849fb9fa03a The complainant requested from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) information about the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project. He was denied access to information in 272 documents held by FCO. There were major delays due to FCO’s handling of the matter which were compounded by delays within ICO. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, FCO released the majority of the information requested. The Commissioner decided that there had been breaches by FCO of both the Act and the EIR. A list of the relevant documents and exemptions and exceptions was agreed by the Commissioner’s staff with FCO officials. He decided that some, but not all, of the information is environmental within the meaning of Regulation 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(c) of the EIR. As regards the Act, he decided that FCO was in breach of section 1(1)(b) of the Act in wrongly withholding some of the information requested and in not providing information about the documents that were being withheld. FCO was in breach of section 10(1) of the Act in not complying with section 1(1) of the Act within 20 working days. FCO was in breach of section 17(1) of the Act in refusing to provide information outside the timescale set out in section 10(1). FCO had correctly applied the exemptions contained in sections 27(1)(a), 27(1)(b) and 27(1)(d) when withholding the relevant information and in those cases the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. FCO had correctly applied the exemptions contained in sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) when withholding the relevant information and in those cases the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner decided that the section 41 exemption applied to information in two documents that FCO had withheld by incorrectly applying other exemptions. As regards the EIR, the Commissioner decided that FCO’s delays in considering the request and responding to it were in breach of EIR Regulations 5(2), 7(2) and 14(2). The failure to specify in the form of a schedule what information was being withheld was a further breach of EIR Regulation 5(2). FCO’s delays in reviewing its refusal of the complainant’s request were in breach of Regulation 11(4). FCO had correctly applied the exception contained in Regulation 12(4)(e) when withholding the relevant information and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. FCO had correctly applied the exception contained in Regulation 12(5)(e) when withholding the relevant information and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. FCO had correctly applied the exception contained in Regulation 12(5)(f) when withholding the relevant information and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fer_0081530.pdf Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:31:02 GMT 380f4c74-36a0-45f1-977c-4eb55575eb6e The complainant requested information on the private equity investments made by the council on behalf of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF). The council refused to supply some of the information on the basis that it was subject to a confidentiality agreement between it and various investment organisations (section 41), and that a disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of some of the parties involved (section 43). The Commissioner's decision is that the information should be disclosed on the basis that the public interest in knowing that public funds are being invested wisely overrides the public interest in protecting confidentiality in this instance. The Commissioner also believes that a disclosure would not prejudice the commercial interests of any party. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/decision_notice_fs50083667.pdf Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:10:12 GMT a850acae-b339-4c2b-b65e-e35407e2e6c0 On 29 October 2007, the complainant requested information from the public authority about the withdrawal of its complaints procedure. The public authority has not responded to this request, despite the intervention of the Commissioner, and is therefore in breach section 1(1) of the Act. The Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to respond to the request. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50201095.pdf Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:23:47 GMT d2f17e74-fef9-4be1-b8a4-43626df12f82 The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to Liverpool Hope University (the “university”) for information relating to enrolment of students at the university and refunds made for fees paid by students who did not go on to commence the course enrolled for. The university refused to provide the requested information and applied the exemption set out at section 40(2) of the Act, as the information contained personal data relating to a third party and to disclose this information would breach the principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”). After considering the case the Commissioner upheld the university’s decision to withhold the information under section 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The Commissioner did however find that the university was in breach of sections 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c) of the Act as it did not give the complainant enough detail as to exactly which subsection of section 40 it was relying upon and why this exemption had been engaged. Furthermore the Commissioner has found that the university is also in breach of section 10(1) as it did not provide an adequate refusal notice within the twenty working day time period specified by that section. The Commissioner does not require the university to take any further steps in relation to the complainant’s request. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50193659.pdf Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:16:59 GMT 62e47e15-7973-4860-a91f-739cdf96ed35 The complainant requested details of the complaints made to Ofcom in relation to BGTV. Ofcom refused to disclose the information under section 44 of the Act explaining that section 393 of the Communications Act prohibited it from disclosing the information. The Commissioner has investigated and found that section 393 does prohibit disclosure of the information and that section 44 of the Act is therefore engaged. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50187452.pdf Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:13:04 GMT e3c60ebe-489d-4dfe-b65e-70d21226ff9a The complainant requested information the Charity Commission held in relation to its inquiry into the Mariam Appeal. This request was refused on the basis that the information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of the exemptions contained at sections 27, 31, 32, 40, 41 and 42 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that all of the requested information is exempt by virtue of the sections 32(2)(a) and 32(2)(b). However, in handling this request the Commissioner has also concluded that the public authority failed to provide a refusal notice compliant with sections 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c) and 17(3) of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50182912.pdf Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:10:08 GMT 21e499f3-1d7a-45a8-8c3c-db317b3158bf The complainant made a request for information to the Department for Work and Pensions (the ”DWP”) for the number of Parliamentary Questions (“PQs”) for Written Answer that had been colour coded red under a ”traffic light” system for colour coding PQs. The complainant asked for the information to be broken down in respect of one specific MP and collectively for other MPs. The DWP refused the request stating that the information held was exempt under section 35(1) (d) of the Act. After investigating the case, the Information Commissioner finds that the first element of the request should properly have been treated as a subject access request within the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner has weighed up the public interest arguments for and against disclosure under section 35(1) (d) of the Act applied by the DWP and finds that the balance of the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of the information. He therefore requires the DWP to disclose to the complainant the information which was the subject of the second element of his request. The Commissioner also finds that DWP, breached the requirements of sections 1(1) (b), 10(1) and 17(1). http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50169317.pdf Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:02:20 GMT 91af5107-05c4-4e06-bff3-81b075d6e8de The complainant requested the name and address of the solicitor who had provided advice to the Child Support Agency (the CSA) in relation to an application for a special payment referral. The CSA provided the name of the corporate section in which the solicitor worked and its address, but refused to disclose the actual name of the solicitor citing the exemptions at sections 36(2)(c) and 38 of the Act. During the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority also cited the exemption at section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the information is the personal data of the solicitor, the disclosure of which would breach the first data protection principle. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the public authority applied the Act appropriately in citing the section 40(2) exemption. However, the Commissioner decided that the authority initially breached sections 10 and 17 of the Act. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50156539.pdf Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:57:51 GMT 570d341c-8d5d-4528-9ed8-e7186329184a The complainant requested information from the public authority relating to the number of notifications of replacement cattle ear tags received, broken down by manufacturer. The public authority provided some information but refused to release any information broken down to individual manufacturer level, citing the exemption at section 43 of the Act. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the public authority further cited the exemption at section 41 of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 1 of the Act by inappropriately citing the exemptions at section 43 and 41. Accordingly, the Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information requested. In addition, the Commissioner considers that the authority breached the requirements of section 17 of the Act. http://www.dpr.gov.uk./upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50145663.pdf Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:23:43 GMT c62fcaa9-cba0-4073-84d9-7bf3bf5ab95c