Scientology internal comms: Rates Collection + City Solicitor

The City of London acknowledges receipt of your request.

City of London
[1]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Further to your request of 9 June 2009 (the second of two of that date),
and our acknowledgement of 10 June, we are aware that the compliance
deadline for the request was yesterday. Please accept our apologies for
the delay in responding. We aim to respond to the request by close of 9
July or sooner.

If you wish to make a complaint about the way the CoL has handled your
enquiry, please make your complaint in writing to email address:
[email address]. For a link to the CoL's FOI complaints
procedure, please visit the following page:
[1]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Feedback, at the end of which is located the
FOI complaints procedure. If, having used the CoL's FOI Complaints
Procedure, you are still dissatisfied, you may request the Information
Commissioner to investigate. Please contact: Information Commissioner,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Telephone:
(01625) 545700. Website: [2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/.

The CoL holds the copyright in this email and attached document. The
supply of these does not give you a right to re-use the documents in a way
that would infringe that copyright, for example, by making copies,
publishing and issuing copies to the public or to any other person. Brief
extracts of any of the material may be reproduced under the fair dealing
provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (sections 29 and
30) for the purposes of research for non-commercial purposes, private
study, criticism, review and news reporting, subject to an acknowledgement
of the copyright owner.

City of London
[3]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Further to your request of 9 June 2009 (the second of two of that date),
and our acknowledgement of 10 June, and our apology sent earlier today
with regard to the late response time, this response acts as a Refusal
Notice to your request.

Your request was as follows:

Please provide internal communications (including but not limited
to emails, memos, letters, minutes and agenda) relating to
Scientology organisations, for the past 5 years, as held by the
following departments:

City Solicitor's Department

Rates Collection Office

By 'Scientology organisations', I mean organisations which promote,
recruit members for, or raise money for, Church of Scientology
Religious Education College Incorporated (an overseas corporation
which has been denied charitable status in the UK).

To the best of my knowledge a list of such organisations would
include:

Citizens Commission on Human Rights (United Kingdom) Ltd / Citizens
Commission on Human Rights International / Jive Aces / Church of
Scientology Inc / Greenfields School / Greenfields Educational
Trust / Hubbard Foundation / ABLE / Applied Scholastics
International / Narconon / Criminon / The Way to Happiness
Foundation International / Church of Scientology Religious
Education College Inc / Office of Special Affairs (OSA) / Sea Org /
Youth for Human Rights International

I am aware that these communications may need to be redacted to
protect the DPA rights of individuals mentioned in them; I do not
consider this an acceptable reason for you to refuse to release the
documents entirely.

The City of London (CoL) confirms that it holds information of the type
requested. However we are unable to provide this information to you,
relying on the section 14(1) exemption of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA), vexatious requests (although we do appreciate that you have
always adopted a courteous tone in your correspondence). This is an
absolute exemption. We provide the following reasons for its application:

1. You have made around 100 requests to other public authorities
regarding the Church of Scientology (evidenced on the "What do they
know" website), including eight which have been directed to this
authority since February 2009. We consider that it is reasonable to
conclude that this pattern illustrates that the requests are
obsessive, manifestly unreasonable and that the most recent request
to the CoL is a continuation of the theme of previous requests,
namely information regarding the CoL's dealings with the Church of
Scientology. The Information Commissioner and Information
Tribunal have noted in previous decisions that it is entirely
appropriate to consider the request in the context of the number,
frequency, length and scope of previous correspondence, whether
information received in answer to one request has been used to ask
for further information or clarification in subsequent requests,
and to consider the aggregated effect of dealing with all the
requests known to have been made across the public sector (refer
EA/2007/0088, EA2007/0109, EA2007/0130, FS50151851, FS50180689).

2. The broad and unfocussed scope of a number of your requests,
including this one, would impose a significant burden on the authority
in terms of expense and distraction from our normal business. The
Information Commissioner's Awareness Guidance on the subject of
vexatious and repeated requests states that a public authority needs to
consider more than just the cost of compliance with the request and
needs to consider whether responding would divert or distract staff from
their usual work as would occur in responding to your request. Please
bear in mind also that the `appropriate limit' (provided for in the
Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees)
Regulations 2004, where the cost ceiling, called (as you will know) the
'appropriate limit', of £450, represents 18 hours work by one person
equivalent at the statutory chargeable rate of £25 an hour) only
represents a fraction of the officer-hours it may take to comply with a
request, as exemptions also have to be considered, and redaction /
extractions and copies made, as appropriate, and as such an unfocussed
request such as this one would by its nature impose a significant burden
on the authority.

3. We also note that we have already issued a Refusal Notice (dated
6 May 2009) to another request (dated 7 April 2009) from you in the same
broad and unfocussed terms which was directed generally at the CoL. We
refused that request on the basis that we had estimated that the work
required to locate and extract the information you have requested would
take considerably more time than provided for in the `appropriate
limit'. Specifically we advised you that to fully comply with your
request would involve thoroughly surveying the filing systems for
departments, covering all document types and checking for every
organisation which you list and we estimated it would take the
Comptroller and City Solicitor's Department 10 hours to search their
records and the Rates Collection Office 19 hours. We also advised you
that because of the general nature and scope of your request it was
difficult to suggest ways in which you could reduce your request so that
it may fall within the appropriate limit and that there was no focus to
your request and therefore no indication of any particular area of
interest.

In addition, we would rely upon the following exemptions should we have
felt able to comply with the request: section 31(1)(d) exemption
(prejudice to the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any
imposition of a similar nature), section 41 (information provided in
confidence) and section 40(2) in respect of the names and contact details
of certain individuals referred to.

Application of Exemptions
(1) Section 40(2) exemption
We would apply the FOIA section 40(2) exemption (personal information) to
disclosure of the name of various individuals. We consider that where
someone works, including who their employer is, is personal information,
whether in the public or private sector. The Information Tribunal has
upheld the view that "to release the name of an individual's employer
would be to release significant personal data", and hence could be a
breach of the Data Protection Principles under the Data Protection Act
1998 (DPA). The exemption is engaged as we consider that a breach of the
First Data Protection Principle under the DPA would occur because of
disclosure, i.e. the principle of fair and lawful processing. There is no
general expectation by third parties that their place of work and work
contact details should be automatically disclosed by the CoL following a
FOI request, which requests we have to treat as being in effect a
disclosure to everyone and anyone, i.e. it becomes fully public
information.

(2) Section 31(1)(d) exemption
With would apply the section 31(1)(d) exemption - prejudice to the
assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a
similar nature. In order that the CoL may undertake its functions in
respect of the assessment and collection of tax etc such discussions must
take place out of the public eye and the release of the information may
affect both the openness of future discussions with any applicant and the
confidence of applicants in the CoL in dealing fairly and impartially with
their application without being subject to outside influences. (Refer the
Information Commissioner's decisions - FS50066998 and FS50098771.) Release
of the information would therefore be prejudicial to the exercise of these
functions.

This exemption is subject to the public interest test. While there is a
public interest in encouraging accountability and transparency by
increasing public understanding of the CoL's processes and decisions, this
should be weighed against both the detrimental effect that release of the
information would have in assessing applications for grant relief as
future applications would be likely to be expressed less frankly if it
were known that they were likely to be released into the public domain;
together with the inherent public interest in the effective working of the
process for determining mandatory rate relief in order to ensure the
efficient use of the public authority's resources in assessing
applications and awarding relief. We would not normally disclose the
information requested for these reasons and also to ensure that there
could be no suggestion that outside pressures were affecting a fair
assessment by the CoL as a public authority. We are mindful that certain
members of the public may have an interest in the conduct of the Church of
Scientology, however this of itself does not constitute a public interest
argument supporting disclosure (refer the Information Tribunal decision of
Hogan v The Information Commissioner, EA/2005/0026, EA/2005/0030). It is
important that there should be equity in the way all ratepayers are
treated.

(3) Section 41 exemption
With regard to information which has not been disclosed and which, while
contained in internal communications, was received from third parties, we
would also apply the section 41 exemption - information provided in
confidence. This exemption would be relied upon as this information was
provided to the CoL in confidence; it continues to have the necessary
quality of confidence in that it is not otherwise accessible and is more
than trivial in nature; it was imparted to the CoL in circumstances
importing an obligation of confidence; and it is considered that
disclosure of the information would give rise to an actionable breach of
confidence.

The FOIA applies to the CoL as a local authority, police authority and
port health authority. Subject to any other statutory provisions requiring
the CoL to disclose information, release of information outside the scope
of the Act is subject to the discretion of the CoL.

We are aware that the compliance deadline for this request was yesterday.
Once again, please accept our apologies for the delay in responding, which
does not come up to the standards we seek to attain. We would note that we
experienced a 52% increase in FOI requests last year over our previous
busiest year, and this year is going to see on current trends a further
16% increase over last year. This has to be balanced with pressure from
our other statutory duties.

If you wish to make a complaint about the way the CoL has handled your
enquiry, please make your complaint in writing to email address:
[email address]. For a link to the CoL's FOI complaints
procedure, please visit the following page:
[1]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Feedback, at the end of which is located the
FOI complaints procedure. If, having used the CoL's FOI Complaints
Procedure, you are still dissatisfied, you may request the Information
Commissioner to investigate. Please contact: Information Commissioner,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Telephone:
(01625) 545700. Website: [2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/.

The CoL holds the copyright in this email and attached document. The
supply of these does not give you a right to re-use the documents in a way
that would infringe that copyright, for example, by making copies,
publishing and issuing copies to the public or to any other person. Brief
extracts of any of the material may be reproduced under the fair dealing
provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (sections 29 and
30) for the purposes of research for non-commercial purposes, private
study, criticism, review and news reporting, subject to an acknowledgement
of the copyright owner.

City of London
[3]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Thank you for your two emails of today concerning this complaint.

By this email, your request for a review is copied to our complaints
officer, who will log your complaint. The City of London aims to respond
to FOI complaints within 20 working days from the first working day after
receiving the complaint.

City of London
[1]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Thank you for your email, which as been forwarded to the two functional
areas concerned, ie the City Solicitor's Department and the Rates
Collection Office.

City of London
www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Following your request for information of 9 June 2009 (Our Ref: FOI RFI:
Thackeray (2), wef 10 June 2009), the response by the City of London (CoL)
of 8 July, your complaint of 10 July, and your request of 13 July for an
indication of how to narrow your request so that it may fall within the
appropriate limit, the CoL responds as follows.

The request could be brought within the appropriate limit by limiting the
request to internal communications held by the City Solicitor's Department
and the Rates Collection Office between the date of the application for
mandatory rate relief and the date when the relief was granted, ie 19
April 2005 and 19 October 2006. As you will be aware, the appropriate
limit is concerned only with location and retrieval of information, and
extracting it from information which has not been requested. Any request
is still subject to the consideration of exemptions to disclosure.

For the avoidance of misunderstanding, should you decide to make a new
request, please also state whether or not you are withdrawing your
previous request (Our Ref: FOI RFI: Thackeray (2), wef 10 June 2009) and
your complaint of 10 July relating to it (Our Ref: FOI Complaint:
Thackeray (1), wef 13 July 2009).

City of London
[1]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

The City of London (CoL) acknowledges receipt of your request.

The CoL also notes the withdrawal of your request of 9 June 2009 (CoL Ref:
FOI RFI: Thackeray (2), wef 10 June 2009), and that you nevertheless wish
your complaint in relation to the CoL's response to it to still be
considered (CoL Ref: FOI Complaint: Thackeray (1), wef 13 July 2009).

City of London
[1]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

The City of London (CoL) has considered your complaint made by email on
the 10 July 2009 in respect of your email request for information under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) made on the 9 June 2009 and our
response to that request on the 8 July, also sent by email.

Our decision is that your complaint is unsuccessful.

You made the following request on the 6 June 2009:

"Please provide internal communications (including but not limited
to emails, memos, letters, minutes and agenda) relating to
Scientology organisations, for the past 5 years, as held by the
following departments:

City Solicitor's Department

Rates Collection Office

By 'Scientology organisations', I mean organisations which promote,
recruit members for, or raise money for, Church of Scientology
Religious Education College Incorporated (an overseas corporation
which has been denied charitable status in the UK).

To the best of my knowledge a list of such organisations would
include:

Citizens Commission on Human Rights (United Kingdom) Ltd / Citizens
Commission on Human Rights International / Jive Aces / Church of
Scientology Inc / Greenfields School / Greenfields Educational
Trust / Hubbard Foundation / ABLE / Applied Scholastics
International / Narconon / Criminon / The Way to Happiness
Foundation International / Church of Scientology Religious
Education College Inc / Office of Special Affairs (OSA) / Sea Org /
Youth for Human Rights International

I am aware that these communications may need to be redacted to
protect the DPA rights of individuals mentioned in them; I do not
consider this an acceptable reason for you to refuse to release the
documents entirely."

We issued a Refusal Notice on the 8 July 2009 and indicated that the
information which fell within your request would not be disclosed as your
request was vexatious, to comply with your request would in any event
exceed the appropriate limit as we had already previously advised you in
responding to an earlier similar request, and that in any event the
information you were seeking would be exempt from disclosure pursuant to:
FOIA section 31(1)(d) - prejudice to the assessment or collection of any
tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature; section 40(2) -
personal data of third parties; and section 41 - confidential information
received from third parties.

We take this opportunity to note that the Refusal Notice should also have
referred to section 42 - legal professional privilege. We would rely upon
the exemption in respect of information in respect of which a claim for
legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.
This exemption is subject to the public interest test and it is considered
that the public interest in maintaining the exemption and withholding the
information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. We would argue
that there is a strong element of public interest inbuilt into legal
professional privilege itself and at least equally strong countervailing
considerations must be adduced for the public interest to weigh in favour
of disclosure. (Please see: Bellamy v The Information Commissioner [2006]
UK Information Tribunal, Reference: EA/2005/0023). It is considered that
such equal or overriding considerations do not arise in this case. While
there is a public interest in disclosing information that enables scrutiny
of a public authority's actions and which encourages transparency in
decision-making, in this particular case the public interest weighs in
favour of maintaining the exemption as it is in the public interest that
public authorities are not disadvantaged in their legal affairs and are
allowed to conduct, in confidence, a free and frank exchange of
information and views as to their legal rights and obligations with those
advising them without fear or intrusion. The CoL's Departments demand and
receive comprehensive advice which directly affects the CoL's decision
making. Without that advice the quality of the decisions themselves would
be reduced and such a scenario would be contrary to the public interest.

In your complaint of the 10 July you made certain counter arguments to our
refusal to provide the information requested on the basis that your
request was vexatious. We have reviewed our decision and the reasons given
in our Refusal Notice, and remain of the view that your request was
properly refused for the reasons already given. We also note that this
reasoning is consistent with the recent decision of the Information
Tribunal regarding Brent Council dated 25 June 2009 (FS50238979). We
agree that you are not obliged to provide reasons for making your request.

If you are dissatisfied with the decision, you may request the Information
Commissioner to investigate.

The Information Commissioner is a Crown appointment, responsible for
monitoring compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. Please contact:
Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire,
SK9 5AF. Telephone: (01625) 545700. Website: [1]www.ico.gov.uk

City of London
[2]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

______________________________________________
From: COL - EB - Information Officer
Sent: 10 July 2009 16:54
To: 'William Thackeray'
Cc: TC - Complaints
Subject: FOI Complaint: Thackeray (1), wef 13 July 2009

Thank you for your two emails of today concerning this complaint.

By this email, your request for a review is copied to our complaints
officer, who will log your complaint. The City of London aims to respond
to FOI complaints within 20 working days from the first working day after
receiving the complaint.

City of London
[3]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Following your request of 24 July 2009 (with effect from 27 July) and our
acknowledgement of 27 July, the City of London (CoL) responds as follows.

We note you made the following request on the 24 July:

... I would like to go ahead and amend my previous request, bringing it
within the appropriate limit by limiting the request to internal
communications held by the City Solicitor's Department and the Rates
Collection Office between the date of the application for mandatory rate
relief and the date when the relief was granted, ie 19 April 2005 and 19
October 2006. ...

The earlier request to which you referred was that made by you on the 9
June 2009 as follows:

...Please provide internal communications (including but not limited to
emails, memos, letters, minutes and agenda) relating to Scientology
organisations, for the past 5 years, as held by the following departments:

City Solicitor's Department

Rates Collection Office

By 'Scientology organisations', I mean organisations which promote,
recruit members for, or raise money for, Church of Scientology Religious
Education College Incorporated (an overseas corporation which has been
denied charitable status in the UK).

To the best of my knowledge a list of such organisations would include:

Citizens Commission on Human Rights (United Kingdom) Ltd / Citizens
Commission on Human Rights International / Jive Aces / Church of
Scientology Inc / Greenfields School / Greenfields Educational
Trust / Hubbard Foundation / ABLE / Applied Scholastics
International / Narconon / Criminon / The Way to Happiness
Foundation International / Church of Scientology Religious
Education College Inc / Office of Special Affairs (OSA) / Sea Org /
Youth for Human Rights International ...

This letter constitutes an interim response, and a partial Refusal Notice
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

Unfortunately the CoL will be unable to fully resolve your request within
the statutory 20 working days (which falls due today, 21 August). Because
of the nature of much of the information which falls under your request,
the CoL needs to consider the public interest test in relation to your
request under the following exemptions in the FOIA: section 31(1)(d)
(prejudice to the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any
imposition of a similar nature) and section 42 (legal professional
privilege). In accordance with Section 10(3)(b) of the FOIA we consider
that we need up to a further 20 working days. We will attempt to respond
to you in completion of the request by or before then. Please accept our
apologies for the delay.

The CoL makes the following part-response to your request.

In accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA, we inform you that we hold
the information requested.

We also note that some of the information falling within your most recent
request of the 24 July has already previously been requested by you and
these requests were refused, relying upon the exemptions referred to in
this communication.

In relation to some of the information falling under your request we
advise you that it is exempt from disclosure under section 41 (information
provided in confidence) and subsection 40(2) (personal information).
These are absolute exemptions and not subject to the public interest test.
We describe our reasons for applying the exemptions, as follows.

(a) section 41 - information received which would constitute an actionable
breach of confidence

This exemption is being relied upon as this information was provided to
the CoL from third parties in confidence; it continues to have the
necessary quality of confidence in that it is not otherwise accessible and
is more than trivial in nature; it was imparted to the CoL in
circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; and it is considered
that disclosure of the information would give rise to an actionable breach
of confidence

(b) section 40(2) - personal information

We apply the FOIA section 40(2) exemption (personal information) to
disclosure of names and contact details of post holders below divisional
head level and to the name, signature and contact of other individuals.
We consider that where someone works, including who their employer is, is
personal information, whether in the public or private sector. The
Information Tribunal has upheld the view that "to release the name of an
individual's employer would be to release significant personal data", and
hence could be a breach of the Data Protection Principles under the Data
Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The exemption is engaged as we consider that a
breach of the First Data Protection Principle under the DPA would occur
because of disclosure, i.e. the principle of fair and lawful processing.
There is no general expectation by third parties that their place of work
and work contact details should be automatically disclosed by the CoL
following a FOI request, which requests we have to treat as being in
effect a disclosure to everyone and anyone, ie it becomes fully public
information. (Refer paragraph 25 of Appeal Number EA/2007/0058 of 5
February 2008, the Yorkshire Forward case, which can be found at
[1]http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/De...).)

The FOIA applies to the CoL as a local authority, police authority and
port health authority. Subject to any other statutory provisions requiring
the City of London to disclose information, release of information outside
the scope of the Act is subject to the discretion of the City of London.

If you wish to make a complaint about the way the CoL has handled your
enquiry, please make your complaint in writing to email address:
[email address]. For a link to the CoL's FOI complaints
procedure, please visit the following page:
[2]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Feedback, at the end of which is located the
FOI complaints procedure. If, having used the CoL's FOI Complaints
Procedure, you are still dissatisfied, you may request the Information
Commissioner to investigate. Please contact: Information Commissioner,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Telephone:
(01625) 545700. Website: [3]http://www.ico.gov.uk/.

The CoL holds the copyright in this communication. The supply of it does
not give a right to re-use it in a way that would infringe that copyright,
for example, by making copies, publishing and issuing copies to the public
or to any other person. Brief extracts of any of the material may be
reproduced under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988 (sections 29 and 30) for the purposes of research for
non-commercial purposes, private study, criticism, review and news
reporting, subject to an acknowledgement of the copyright owner.

City of London
[4]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

_____________________________________________
From: COL - EB - Information Officer
Sent: 27 July 2009 18:16
To: 'William Thackeray'
Subject: FOI RFI: Thackeray, wef 27 July 2009

The City of London (CoL) acknowledges receipt of your request.

The CoL also notes the withdrawal of your request of 9 June 2009 (CoL Ref:
FOI RFI: Thackeray (2), wef 10 June 2009), and that you nevertheless wish
your complaint in relation to the CoL's response to it to still be
considered (CoL Ref: FOI Complaint: Thackeray (1), wef 13 July 2009).

City of London
[5]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Thackeray,

In the interim response sent to you by the City of London (CoL) on 21
August 2009, we set a revised deadline of 21 September, in accordance with
Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Unfortunately,
we are unable to meet this revised deadline. We will be able to let you
know tomorrow, 22 September, what is our further revised deadline. In the
meantime, please accept our apologies for the delay, which we are aware
exceeds the time advised in the Information Commissioner's guidelines.

If you wish to make a complaint about the way the CoL has handled your
enquiry, please make your complaint in writing to email address:
[email address]. For a link to the CoL's FOI complaints
procedure, please visit the following page:
[1]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Feedback, at the end of which is located the
FOI complaints procedure. If, having used the CoL's FOI Complaints
Procedure, you are still dissatisfied, you may request the Information
Commissioner to investigate. Please contact: Information Commissioner,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Telephone:
(01625) 545700. Website: [2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/.

The CoL holds the copyright in this communication. The supply of it does
not give a right to re-use it in a way that would infringe that copyright,
for example, by making copies, publishing and issuing copies to the public
or to any other person. Brief extracts of any of the material may be
reproduced under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988 (sections 29 and 30) for the purposes of research for
non-commercial purposes, private study, criticism, review and news
reporting, subject to an acknowledgement of the copyright owner.

City of London
[3]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Thackeray,

Following the City of London's email to you of 21 September 2009, our
revised deadline is Friday, 25 September 2009. Once again, we apologise
for this delay.

City of London
[1]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

_____________________________________________
From: COL - EB - Information Officer
Sent: 21 September 2009 20:59
To: 'William Thackeray'
Subject: FOI RFI: Thackeray, wef 27 July 2009

Dear Mr Thackeray,

In the interim response sent to you by the City of London (CoL) on 21
August 2009, we set a revised deadline of 21 September, in accordance with
Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Unfortunately,
we are unable to meet this revised deadline. We will be able to let you
know tomorrow, 22 September, what is our further revised deadline. In the
meantime, please accept our apologies for the delay, which we are aware
exceeds the time advised in the Information Commissioner's guidelines.

If you wish to make a complaint about the way the CoL has handled your
enquiry, please make your complaint in writing to email address:
[email address]. For a link to the CoL's FOI complaints
procedure, please visit the following page:
[2]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Feedback, at the end of which is located the
FOI complaints procedure. If, having used the CoL's FOI Complaints
Procedure, you are still dissatisfied, you may request the Information
Commissioner to investigate. Please contact: Information Commissioner,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Telephone:
(01625) 545700. Website: [3]http://www.ico.gov.uk/.

The CoL holds the copyright in this communication. The supply of it does
not give a right to re-use it in a way that would infringe that copyright,
for example, by making copies, publishing and issuing copies to the public
or to any other person. Brief extracts of any of the material may be
reproduced under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988 (sections 29 and 30) for the purposes of research for
non-commercial purposes, private study, criticism, review and news
reporting, subject to an acknowledgement of the copyright owner.

City of London
[4]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Following your request of 24 July 2009 (with effect from 27 July), our
acknowledgement of 27 July, our Interim Response and Partial Refusal
Notice of the 21 August, and our further emails of 21 and 22 September,
the City of London (CoL) responds as follows.

We note that you made the following request on the 24 July:

... I would like to go ahead and amend my previous request, bringing it
within the appropriate limit by limiting the request to internal
communications held by the City Solicitor's Department and the Rates
Collection Office between the date of the application for mandatory rate
relief and the date when the relief was granted, ie 19 April 2005 and 19
October 2006. ...

The earlier request to which you referred was that made by you on the 9
June 2009 as follows:

...Please provide internal communications (including but not limited to
emails, memos, letters, minutes and agenda) relating to Scientology
organisations, for the past 5 years, as held by the following departments:

City Solicitor's Department

Rates Collection Office

By 'Scientology organisations', I mean organisations which promote,
recruit members for, or raise money for, Church of Scientology Religious
Education College Incorporated (an overseas corporation which has been
denied charitable status in the UK).

To the best of my knowledge a list of such organisations would include:

Citizens Commission on Human Rights (United Kingdom) Ltd / Citizens
Commission on Human Rights International / Jive Aces / Church of
Scientology Inc / Greenfields School / Greenfields Educational
Trust / Hubbard Foundation / ABLE / Applied Scholastics
International / Narconon / Criminon / The Way to Happiness
Foundation International / Church of Scientology Religious
Education College Inc / Office of Special Affairs (OSA) / Sea Org /
Youth for Human Rights International ...

On the 21 August we refused access to certain information and relied upon
section 40(2) and s 41. Our reasons for refusal with reference to those
exemptions are not rehearsed in this further response.

The CoL has now been able to consider the public interest test in relation
to your request under the following exemptions in the FOIA: section
31(1)(d) (prejudice to the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or
of any imposition of a similar nature) and section 42 (legal professional
privilege).

The CoL makes the following response in completion of its response to your
request.

In accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA, we inform you that we hold
the information requested. We have provided you with a schedule of the
information falling within your request.

<<Schedule of Docs.pdf>>

We also note that some of the information falling within your most recent
request of the 24 July has already previously been requested by you and
these requests were refused, relying upon the exemptions referred to in
this communication.

In relation to some of the information falling under your request, in
addition to the exemptions previously relied upon in our Partial Refusal
Notice dated 21 August, we advise you that it is exempt from disclosure
under section 31(1)(d) (prejudice to the assessment or collection of any
tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature) and section 42
(legal professional privilege). We describe our reasons for applying the
exemptions, as follows:

(a) Section 31(1)(d) exemption

We apply the section 31(1)(d) exemption - prejudice to the assessment or
collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature.
In order that the CoL may undertake its functions in respect of the
assessment and collection of tax etc such discussions must take place out
of the public eye and the release of the information may affect both the
openness of future discussions with any applicant and the confidence of
applicants in the CoL in dealing fairly and impartially with their
application without being subject to outside influences. (Refer the
Information Commissioner's decisions - FS50066998 and FS50098771.) Release
of the information would therefore be prejudicial to the exercise of these
functions.

This exemption is subject to the public interest test. While there is a
public interest in encouraging accountability and transparency by
increasing public understanding of the CoL's processes and decisions, this
should be weighed against both the detrimental effect that release of the
information would have in assessing applications for grant relief as
future applications would be likely to be expressed less frankly if it
were known that they were likely to be released into the public domain;
together with the inherent public interest in the effective working of the
process for determining mandatory rate relief in order to ensure the
efficient use of the public authority's resources in assessing
applications and awarding relief. We would not normally disclose the
information requested for these reasons and also to ensure that there can
be no suggestion that outside pressures were affecting a fair assessment
by the CoL as a public authority. We are mindful that certain members of
the public may have an interest in the conduct of the Church of
Scientology, however this of itself does not constitute a public interest
argument supporting disclosure (refer the Information Tribunal decision of
Hogan v The Information Commissioner, EA/2005/0026, EA/2005/0030). It is
important that there should be equity in the way all ratepayers are
treated.

(b) Section 42 - legal professional privilege.

The CoL applies this exemption as it is considered that the public
interest in maintaining the exemption and withholding the information
outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. There is a strong element
of public interest inbuilt into legal professional privilege itself and at
least equally strong countervailing considerations must be adduced for the
public interest to weigh in favour of disclosure. (Please see: Bellamy v
The Information Commissioner [2006] UK Information Tribunal, Reference:
EA/2005/0023). It is considered that such equal or overriding
considerations do not arise in this case. While there is a public interest
in disclosing information that enables scrutiny of a public authority's
actions and which encourages transparency in decision-making, in this
particular case the public interest weighs in favour of maintaining the
exemption as the issues remain live, and it is in the public interest that
public authorities are not disadvantaged in their legal affairs and are
allowed to conduct, in confidence, a free and frank exchange of
information and views as to their legal rights and obligations with those
advising them without fear of intrusion. The CoL's Departments demand and
receive comprehensive advice which directly affects the CoL's decision
making. Without that advice the quality of the decisions themselves would
be reduced and such a scenario would be contrary to the public interest.

The balance of non-exempt information is disclosed to you, as attached.

<<Docs.pdf>>
With regard to people mentioned in the disclosures:
Peter Derrick was Chamberlain and head of the Chamberlain's Department
(the finance department).
Carla-Maria Heath is Head of Revenues, Chamberlain's Department.
Richard Howlett is a Chief Legal Assistant in the Comptroller's Department
(the legal department).

Please accept our apologies for the delay in making a final response to
your request. The further delay, additional to that leading from the
application of section 10 of the FOIA, was a result of pressure of
competing priorities. This does not come up to our normal standards and we
would concur that it is not acceptable.

The FOIA applies to the CoL as a local authority, police authority and
port health authority. Subject to any other statutory provisions requiring
the City of London to disclose information, release of information outside
the scope of the Act is subject to the discretion of the City of London.

If you wish to make a complaint about the way the CoL has handled your
enquiry, please make your complaint in writing to email address:
[email address]. For a link to the CoL's FOI complaints
procedure, please visit the following page:
[1]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Feedback, at the end of which is located the
FOI complaints procedure. If, having used the CoL's FOI Complaints
Procedure, you are still dissatisfied, you may request the Information
Commissioner to investigate. Please contact: Information Commissioner,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Telephone:
(01625) 545700. Website: [2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/.

The CoL holds the copyright in this communication and the attachments. The
supply of these does not give a right to re-use it in a way that would
infringe that copyright, for example, by making copies, publishing and
issuing copies to the public or to any other person. Brief extracts of any
of the material may be reproduced under the fair dealing provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (sections 29 and 30) for the
purposes of research for non-commercial purposes, private study,
criticism, review and news reporting, subject to an acknowledgement of the
copyright owner.

City of London
[3]www.cityoflondon.gov.uk

show quoted sections