This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Business Rates'.


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) 
 
 
Decision Notice 
 
Date: 21 December 2010 
 
 
Public Authority: 
The London Borough of Camden 
Address: 
  Camden 
Town 
Hall 
 
 
 
 
Judd Street 
 
 
 
 
London  
 
 
 
 
WC1H 9JE 
 
 
Summary  
 
 
The complainant requested the address of every empty residential property 
in the London Borough of Camden in which a “non-individual” is listed as 
either being the owner or as having a material interest in the property. The 
London Borough of Camden (“the Council”) refused to provide the 
information, citing the exemption under section 43(2) of the Freedom of 
Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). In its internal review, the Council also 
sought to withhold the information using section 12(1) and 21(1). During the 
Information Commissioner’s (“the Commissioner”) investigation, the Council 
withdrew its previous reliance on all three exemptions and it sought to 
withhold the information using section 31(1)(a) instead. The Commissioner 
decided that section 31(1)(a) was engaged and he accepts that the public 
interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in 
disclosure. The Commissioner also found breaches of section 17(1) and 
17(1)(a)(b) and (c). He requires no steps to be taken. 
 
 
The Commissioner’s Role 
 
 
1. 
The Commissioner’s duty is to decide whether a request for information 
made to a public authority has been dealt with in accordance with the 
requirements of Part 1 of the FOIA. This Notice sets out his decision.  
 
 
 
 
 

 
1


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
The Request 
 

 
2. 
On 25 August 2009, the complainant wrote to the Council requesting 
information in the following terms: 
 
 
“I would like to know the address of every void property in the LB 
Camden, in which a non-individual is listed as either being the owner 
or as having a material interest in the property”. 

 
3. 
On 28 August 2009, the Council replied to the complainant asking for 
clarification in the following terms: 
 
“Please could you confirm if this request concerns residential properties 
only?” 

 
4. 
The complainant replied on the same day, confirming that his request 
did only concern residential properties. 
 
5. 
On 22 September 2009, the Council issued a refusal notice citing the 
exemption under section 43(2) of the FOIA. It stated that the public 
interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in 
disclosing the information. 
 
6. 
On 26 September 2009, the complainant wrote to the Council to ask it 
to conduct an internal review. He explained that he did not accept that 
the information had been correctly withheld. 
 
7. 
The Council provided a copy of its internal review decision to the 
complainant on 3 November 2009. It explained that it had decided to 
uphold its refusal using the exemption under section 43(2). It also 
added that it felt that the exemptions under section 12(1) and 21(1) 
were also engaged.  
 
 
The Investigation 
 
 
Scope of the case 
 
8. 
On 16 March 2010, the complainant contacted the Commissioner to 
complain about the way his request for information had been handled. 
The complainant specifically asked the Commissioner to consider 
complaints relating to the Council’s application of the exemptions under 
section 12(1), 21(1) and 43(2). As these exemptions were 
subsequently withdrawn, the Commissioner has not considered 
 
2


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
complaints relating to the use of these exemptions although he has 
made some comments in the Other Matters section of this Notice 
regarding the complainant’s more general concerns about the quality of 
the Council’s responses. As the complainant considered that the public 
interest in maintaining the exemption under section 31(1)(a) did not 
outweigh the public interest in disclosure, the Commissioner went on to 
consider whether the Council had correctly withheld the information 
using the exemption under section 31(1)(a).  
 
Chronology  
 
9. 
On 5 May 2010, the Commissioner sent a standard letter to the Council 
seeking further information to assist with his investigation. 
 
10.  On 27 May 2010, the Council replied and supplied further supporting 
information. 
 
11.  On 15 July 2010, the Commissioner wrote to the complainant to set 
out his understanding of the request and the complaint.  
 
12.  The complainant replied to the Commissioner on the same day stating 
that he accepted that the Commissioner had accurately described the 
request and complaint, although he did provide slight clarification in 
relation to one point. 
 
13.  On 20 July 2010, the Commissioner wrote to the Council to ask for 
more information about the Council’s reasons for relying on the 
exemptions it had applied. 
 
14.  The Council responded to the Commissioner on 19 August 2010.  
 
15.  On 31 August 2010, the Commissioner sought some clarification and 
further information from the Council via a telephone conversation. 
 
16.  On 1 September 2010, the Commissioner wrote to the complainant 
seeking clarification from him regarding the terms in his request. 
 
17.  On 2 September 2010, the complainant wrote and provided 
clarification. In particular, he explained that his use of the word “void” 
was the result of previous correspondence with the Council regarding 
requests for information where the Council had indicated that this 
phrase would better describe properties that may only be without 
occupants for a period of time as opposed to being without permanent 
occupants, such as properties that are available for re-housing 
applicants to bid upon. He also explained that his use of the phrase 
“material interest” also related to a previous request he had made to 
 
3


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
the Council where the Council had stated that housing associations are 
registered as having a material interest in properties on its records. 
Finally, when asked to explain what was meant by “non-individual”, the 
complainant stated that this had the same meaning as in the case of 
the London Borough of Bexley v Mr Colin P England and the 
Information Commissioner
 (EA/2006/0060 and 0066) heard before the 
Information Tribunal.  
 
18.  On 6 September 2010, the Commissioner wrote to the Council and 
indicated that he had not been persuaded that the exemptions had 
been correctly relied upon. 
 
19.  On 8 September 2010, the Council sent an email to the Commissioner 
taking issue with the way in which the Commissioner had interpreted 
the request. It stated that the Commissioner had said in his letter that 
the request related only to residential properties. It said it would be 
responding in line with its own interpretation of the request, which was 
that it did not cover residential properties.  
 
20.  The Commissioner telephoned the Council on the same day as he 
received the email. He pointed out that the Commissioner had not 
formed his own view on the interpretation of the request. Rather, he 
had based it on email evidence showing that the Council itself 
contacted the complainant and asked him whether his request 
concerned residential properties only. The complainant subsequently 
replied that it did. The Council was unable to locate the relevant 
correspondence in its records over the telephone, and it became 
apparent that from the internal review onwards, the Council had failed 
to take into account the additional clarification provided by the 
complainant. The Council accepted that it would need to reconsider its 
response to the request from the date of the internal review onwards. 
 
21.  The Council sent a further response to the Commissioner on 30 
September 2010. The Council stated that it wished to withdraw its 
reliance on all three of the previous exemptions it had applied. It then 
added that it wished to rely on section 31(1)(a) instead and it supplied 
rationale. 
 
22.  On 21 October 2010, the Commissioner wrote to the complainant 
advising him that the Council’s position had now changed and it was 
seeking to rely on section 31(1)(a) only. This prompted the 
complainant to submit some further comments in respect of the public 
interest test. 
 
23.  On the same day, the Commissioner telephoned the Council to seek 
some clarification regarding a particular point. This was provided.  
 
4


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
Analysis 
 
 
Exemption – Section 31(1)(a) 
 
 
24.  Section 31(1) states that: 
 
“Information which is not exempt information by virtue of Section 30 
[information held for the purposes of investigations and proceedings 
conducted by public authorities] is exempt information if its disclosure 
under this Act would or would be likely to prejudice 

 
 

(a) the prevention or detection of crime 
 
25.  The Commissioner notes that this exemption was applied late by the 
Council. For clarity, where a public authority has not referred to a 
particular exemption when refusing a request for information, the 
Commissioner may exercise his discretion and decide whether, in the 
circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to take the exemption into 
account if it is raised in the course of his investigation. The 
Commissioner will be pragmatic, taking into consideration the potential 
risks associated with disclosure of the information in question. In view 
of the nature of the information in this case, the Commissioner 
considered that it was appropriate to consider the exemption. 
 
Would disclosure be likely to prejudice the prevention and detection 
of crime? 
 
26. In 
Hogan v the ICO and Oxford City Council (EA/2005/0026 and 
EA/2005/0030), the Information Tribunal stated that “The application 
of the “prejudice” test should be considered as involving a number of 
steps. First, there is a need to identify the applicable interest(s) within 
the relevant exemption…Second, the nature of the ‘prejudice’ being 
claimed must be considered…A third step for the decision-making 
concerns the likelihood of occurrence of the prejudice” (paragraphs 28 
to 34). 
 
27.  The relevant applicable interest in this exemption is the prevention or 
detection of crime and the Commissioner accepts that the arguments 
made by the public authority directly address this prejudice. 
 
28.  When considering the second and third steps as set out in the Hogan 
case, the Commissioner must be persuaded that the nature of the 
prejudice that has been argued is “real, actual or of substance” and not 
trivial or insignificant. He must also be satisfied that some causal 
relationship exists between the potential disclosure and the stated 
 
5


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
prejudice. The Commissioner must also be satisfied that that the 
disclosure would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of 
crime. This means that there must be a “real and significant risk” of 
prejudice although the risk need not be more probable than not. 
 
29.  The nature of the prejudice argued by the public authority is that, if a 
list of the addresses of empty properties were to be disclosed then 
these properties would become more vulnerable to potential squatters 
and associated crime. The Council explained that it had come to its 
attention that the complainant was a known squatter who has 
contributed to a number of squatting publications. It explained that he 
had been evicted in the past from properties within the London 
Borough of Camden for squatting in them and it believed this was 
evidence that the information would be used by squatters.  
 
30.  For clarity, it has been established that the FOIA is “applicant-blind”, 
that is to say that a public authority cannot take into account when 
refusing a request what the motivation of a requester is. The 
Commissioner has therefore disregarded the Council’s specific 
knowledge of the possible motivation behind the request in this case. 
 
31.  The Council provided very limited arguments to the Commissioner in 
support of the exemption, and those that it did provide mainly focused 
incorrectly on its knowledge of the requester. Nevertheless, the 
Commissioner and the Information Tribunal have considered requests 
for similar information before and the Commissioner believes that it is 
appropriate to consider these outcomes as part of this decision. 
 
32.  The Commissioner has had particular regard to the case of the London 
Borough of Bexley v Mr Colin P England and the Information 
Commissioner
 (EA/2006/0060 and 0066). In this case, the requester 
had asked for the addresses of vacant, empty or abandoned properties 
that had been listed as “long term empty” and “uninhabitable 
properties”. The information had been withheld using the exemption 
under section 31(1)(a). In summary, the Tribunal accepted that the 
second and third tests set out in paragraph 28 of this Notice were 
satisfied based on the following facts: 
 
  The Tribunal accepted evidence that empty properties are associated 
with criminal activity from organised local gangs. In particular, the 
Tribunal in paragraph 41 identified occasions of organised “stripping” of 
empty properties. This was the removal of all things of value (such as 
pipes and floor boards) leaving an empty and uninhabitable shell 
property. 
 
 
6


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
  The Tribunal also accepted evidence that while squatting is not a crime 
in itself, it is associated with criminal activity. The Tribunal identified a 
number of instances in the evidence it heard between paragraphs 48 
and 57. 
 
  The Tribunal accepted that the disclosure of the list of properties would 
be of use to squatters and would be likely to lead to significant harm in 
the form of criminal activity (paragraph 63) 
 
  Based on the evidence it heard, the Tribunal considered that disclosure 
of the information would be likely to have a significant negative impact 
on the prevention of crime (paragraph 63) 
 
33.  The Commissioner also considered a case involving the London 
Borough of Tower Hamlets and a request for similar information earlier 
this year under reference FS50259951. In this case, the requester had 
asked for the details of both council and non council empty homes in 
Tower Hamlets, including the addresses. The Commissioner relied to a 
significant extent on the findings in the Bexley case to support his 
finding that the exemption under section 31(1)(a) was engaged in this 
case. He also took into account the following evidence received from 
the London Borough of Tower Hamlets on the issue: 
 
  The Council explained that in the opinion of its Empty Homes Officer, 
disclosure of the information would be likely to have an adverse impact 
because it would increase associated crime, which emanates from 
squatting. 
 
  The Council pointed to a series of incidents that occurred subsequent to 
the publicising of a compulsory order and it also provided examples of 
fires, criminal damage, stripping of fixtures from properties and anti-
social behaviour relating to empty properties that have been squatted 
in within its area. 
 
34.  For the reasons set out above, the Commissioner accepts that the 
exemption under section 31(1)(a) was engaged. He has therefore gone 
on to consider the application of the public interest test associated with 
this exemption. 
 
Public interest arguments in favour of disclosing the requested 
information 
 
35.  As the exemption under section 31(1)(a) is a qualified exemption, it is 
subject to a public interest test. In accordance with that test, the 
Commissioner must consider whether the public interest in maintaining 
 
7


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the 
information in all the circumstances of the case. 
 
36.   The Council identified the following public interest in disclosure: 
 
  Releasing the information would assist the general public interest in 
openness, an important aspect of which includes increasing public 
debate concerning the number of empty or void properties within the 
London Borough of Camden. 
 
37.  The complainant also specifically presented a number of arguments in 
favour of disclosure to the Commissioner which the Commissioner has 
summarised below: 
 
  Disclosure of the information would be in the financial and commercial 
interests of the public because it would increase the chances that these 
buildings will be brought back into use, either directly or indirectly by 
putting them into the limelight or by pushing the owners to use them 
to avoid squatting. This in turn would increase the value of 
neighbouring properties as it has been shown that empty buildings 
lower the price of neighbouring buildings by up to 10%.  
 
  The information could be used by those with an interest in empty 
properties, and their rehabilitation. These would include English 
Heritage, the Empty Homes Agency, Urban Explorers, architects, 
photographers, public transparency campaigners, people concerned 
with how public money is used and homeless people. This amounts to a 
considerable amount of people with a legitimate interest in empty 
buildings and their addresses. 
 
  Disclosure could also help academic and policy-orientated research 
which in turn would place more emphasis on empty property as a 
social problem and promote public debate. 
 
  There is a public interest in public authorities being accountable and 
transparent. The complainant referred in particular to accountability 
concerning how the Council is using its resources and decisions 
affecting people’s lives such as the Council’s action or inaction 
regarding individual properties. 
 
  The Council has previously released lists of empty properties, both 
commercial and domestic. 
 
38.  Additionally, the complainant asked the Commissioner to have regard 
to the points made in favour of disclosure under the public interest test 
in the Bexley case. The Commissioner considered this case and was 
 
8


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
broadly content that the bullet points above summarise the main 
points raised in the Bexley case. The complainant also asked the 
Commissioner to consider the points made in favour of disclosure of 
similar information in an earlier case that he had submitted to the 
Commissioner. The Commissioner was satisfied that these points are 
also adequately summarised above.  
 
Public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption 
 
39.  The Council identified the following public interest arguments in favour 
of maintaining the exemption: 
 
  Releasing this information would make it possible for crimes to be 
committed, as entry would need to be forced to gain access to the 
property. 
 
  The residents that are in the properties in close proximity would also 
be under threat due to the fact that a crime is being committed so 
close to them and they have an expectation to feel secure in the 
environment that they live in. 
 
Balance of the public interest arguments
 
 
40.  The Commissioner recognises that there is always some public interest 
in the disclosure of information. Disclosure of information serves the 
general public interest in promotion of better government through 
transparency, accountability, public debate, better public 
understanding of decisions, and informed and meaningful participation 
of the public democratic process. 
 
41.  In considering the public interest in favour of disclosure, the 
Commissioner found some of the background details in the Bexley case 
helpful in setting this request in context. In paragraph 15 of the case, 
the Information Tribunal explained the following: 
 
 
“The policy of the Government is to bring empty properties back into 
use and local authorities, such as the Council, are required to collect 
information about their performance in returning vacant dwellings to 
occupation (Best Value Performance Indicators 2005/2006 published 
February 2005 by the office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In the 
ministerial foreword to “Empty Property: Unlocking the potential: A 
case for Action” published by the office of the Deputy Prime Minster in 
2003 it states: 

 
 

‘We recognise that each empty property is a wasted resource from the 
point of view of the owner, a wasted opportunity from the point of view 

 
9


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
of a developer and a wasted asset from the point of view of local 
authorities charged with bringing forward sufficient land and housing to 
meet projected housing needs’.”  

 
42.  Against this background, it is clear that there is a significant and wide-
ranging public interest in bringing empty properties back into use. The 
Commissioner is aware that this is particularly the case in London 
where affordable housing is scarce. The Commissioner considered the 
argument that disclosure of the addresses could help bring empty 
properties back into use. Where a property is brought back into use, 
this would have a number of beneficial effects in the public interest 
such as: 
 
  Reducing the wasted costs to the owners and wasted opportunities to 
developers 
  The housing needs of some individuals would be met 
  The costs to the public authority of funding alternative or temporary 
accommodation would be reduced and the cost of council tax discounts 
for empty properties would fall 
  The crime associated with empty properties and squatting would be 
likely to fall 
  The ‘broken window syndrome’ by which areas go into decline, 
affecting living standards and property prices, would be likely to be 
reduced (further explanation of the ‘broken window syndrome’ can be 
found in the Bexley case). 
 
43.  The Commissioner accepts, and applies to this case, the finding of the 
Tribunal in the Bexley case at paragraph 80 where the Tribunal stated: 
 
 
“From the evidence before us, in particular the evidence of Mr Ireland 
[Chief Executive of the Empty Homes Agency], it does seem possible 
that disclosure of this list would result in a proportion of the properties 
coming back into use”. 

 
44.  The Commissioner considers that the public interest in bringing houses 
back into use is a strong argument. He accepts the opinion of Mr 
Ireland as summarised at paragraph 71 of the Bexley case that, “the 
most direct and effective way of reducing the economic and social 
problems caused by empty properties and, in particular reducing the 
incidences of criminal activity associated with empty properties is to 
bring those properties back into use”. He also accepts the points made 
by the complainant that there is a significant number of organisations 
and individuals that could be able to put the information to a legitimate 
and positive use and that this, and the very fact of the disclosure in 
itself, could place more emphasis on the issue as a social problem. He 
also appreciates, as suggested in the Bexley case, that disclosure 
 
10


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
might help owners “define potential building users who had not been 
able to reach them before” (paragraph 70) or spur them on to action.  
 
45.  Regarding the above, the Commissioner notes that the Tribunal’s 
finding only accepted a possibility of a proportion of the properties on 
the list being brought back into use as a result of the disclosure of the 
information. Although the Commissioner would still afford significant 
weight to this possibility because of the benefits that it would bring as 
described above, he has given it less weight than he would have done 
if there had been more evidence that a majority of the properties 
would be brought back to use. He also notes that at paragraph 82 of its 
decision, the Tribunal commented that it did not believe that disclosure 
of the addresses would add much in terms of furthering the already 
active public debate on this issue. The Tribunal also expressed concern 
that disclosure of a list of addresses would not take into account the 
varying reasons why a property may be empty. The Commissioner 
shares these concerns, particularly in view of the fact that in the 
present case the request is not limited to properties that have been 
empty for longer periods of time as in the Bexley case. 
 
46.  For the reasons above, the Commissioner accepts that the public 
authority’s responsibilities with regard to housing in the area are very 
important and in view of this, he accepts that there is a corresponding 
need for as much transparency and accountability as possible in this 
area. The Commissioner accepts the points raised by the complainant 
that decisions made relating to empty houses can affect the lives of 
people living in the area because of the association of empty properties 
with social decline and crime. He accepts that disclosure would make 
the authority more accountable regarding its action or inaction for 
individual empty properties, drawing greater attention to how it is 
using its resources.  
 
47.  In reaching the conclusion in the paragraph above, the Commissioner 
did consider that there may be more proportionate means of achieving 
a similar outcome, for example, by releasing management information 
and statistics regarding the performance of the public authority. 
Nevertheless, the Commissioner appreciates that the public interest in 
transparency and accountability could not be fully addressed through 
the disclosure of other, related, information.  
 
48.  The Commissioner also considered that the Council is subject to audit 
and there is a system for measuring its activity in relation to empty 
houses.  The Government has set up a process which emphasises 
cooperation with owners and has within its system some measurement 
of Local Authority Performance. The Commissioner’s view is that 
disclosure under the FOIA should be regarded as a means of 
 
11


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
supporting the other mechanisms of scrutiny, for example, by 
providing a flow of information which a free press could use. He does 
not therefore consider that the public interest in accountability is 
reduced significantly just because another regulatory mechanism 
exists.  
 
49.  Regarding the point made by the complainant that the Council had 
already disclosed the same or similar information in the past, the 
Commissioner has attached no weight to this. The fact that the Council 
may have taken this decision in the past does not prevent it from 
relying on an exemption in the current case, and it does not affect the 
issue of whether or not it was correct to do so.  
 
50.  Turning now to the arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption, 
the Commissioner recognises that there is an inherently strong public 
interest in avoiding likely prejudice to the prevention of crime. The 
crime in this case would be likely to include a diverse range from anti-
social behaviour, criminal damage, arson and organised groups 
stripping empty properties. The Commissioner accepts that tackling 
issues like these would involve significant public expense. It is in the 
public interest to protect property and to ensure that public resources 
are used efficiently. He also accepts that there is a compelling public 
interest in avoiding personal distress to the direct victims of the crime 
and to those in the wider neighbourhood who may be affected. The 
Commissioner considers that once an area is subject to crime, it has an 
impact on the surrounding neighbourhood, reducing the value of 
neighbouring properties and the quality of life of the residents.  
 
51.  In view of the above, the Commissioner considers that there are 
weighty public interest arguments on both sides in this case. He notes 
that in the Bexley case, the Tribunal concluded that where properties 
were owned by individuals, the public interest would favour 
maintaining the exemption, but where the properties were owned by 
those other than individuals, the public interest would favour 
disclosure. The Tribunal explained these different outcomes at 
paragraph 86 of its decision as follows: 
 
 
“This is because the impact of crime on an individual is not present 
[where properties are not owned by individuals] and this inherent 
aspect of the public interest in preventing crime is therefore absent 
and changes the analysis of the balance”.  

 
52.  Respectfully, the Commissioner has reached a different conclusion on 
the facts in this case. In the Commissioner’s view, whilst the direct 
impact on individuals who own properties might not be present for 
properties owned by organisations, this does not mean that the impact 
 
12


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
of crime on individuals is completely absent. The Commissioner accepts 
that crime associated with empty properties can have a substantial 
detrimental impact upon those individual residents who live in 
neighbouring properties or in the wider community. It is arguable that 
the impact on individuals for instance living next door to an empty 
property attracting crime could in some ways be greater than the 
impact on the individuals that own the property but who are not in 
residence.  
 
53.  The Commissioner considers that there is a substantial public interest 
in bringing empty properties back into use, which may be met to some 
extent by the disclosure of the information. However, he has to weigh 
the benefits of this potential longer-term effect, together with the 
public interest in transparency and accountability, against the more 
immediate likely prejudice to the prevention of crime and the 
distressing effect of this on both individuals and other organisations. 
The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the public interest in 
avoiding prejudice to the prevention of crime outweighs the public 
interest in disclosure in all the circumstances of this case.  
 
Procedural Requirements 
 
54.  The Council did not claim the exemption under section 31(1)(a) until 
during the Commissioner’s investigation. It therefore breached section 
17(1) for the failure to issue a refusal notice citing the exemption 
under section 31(1)(a) within 20 working days and section 17(1)(a)(b) 
and (c) for the failure to rely on the exemption by the date of its 
internal review.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
The Decision  
 
 
55.  The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority dealt with the 
following elements of the request in accordance with the requirements 
of the FOIA: 
 
  It correctly relied on the exemption under section 31(1)(a) to withhold 
the information and it correctly determined that in all the circumstance 
of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption 
outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. 
 
56.  However, the Commissioner has also decided that the following 
elements of the request were not dealt with in accordance with the 
FOIA:  
 
  It breached section 17(1) and 17(1)(a)(b) and (c) of the FOIA because 
of its failure to rely on the exemption under section 31(1)(a) until 
during the Commissioner’s investigation. 
 
 
Steps Required 
 
 
57.  The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. 
 
 
Other matters  
 
 
58.  Although they do not form part of this Decision Notice the 
Commissioner wishes to highlight the following matters of concern: 
 
Records management 
 
59.  The Commissioner was concerned to note that when asked, the Council 
was unable to locate the email of clarification that was provided to it by 
the complainant regarding the request. It is also apparent that it failed 
to take this correspondence into account following on from its original 
response and this resulted in its internal review and some of its 
subsequent correspondence to the Commissioner being based on an 
incorrect understanding of the request. The Commissioner was 
concerned that this may be indicative of records management issues at 
the Council and he trusts that the Council will carefully consider this 
and make appropriate improvements in the future. The Council should 
also have regard for the code of practice issued under section 46 of the 
 
14


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
Act, which provides recommendations in respect of records 
management and is published online at the following address: 
 
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-guidance-codes-practice.htm 
 
Late reliance on exemption and quality of responses 
 
60.   The application of an alternative exemption at a late stage may 
suggest the initial refusal or internal review (or possibly both) was not 
afforded appropriate consideration. The Commissioner also noted that 
when the Council refused the request under section 31(1)(a), the 
refusal was not, in the Commissioner’s view, of sufficient quality. The 
Commissioner also noted that the complainant had raised some 
concerns regarding the quality and thoroughness of the Council’s 
refusals and internal reviews. In particular, he expressed concern that 
they did not genuinely present an opportunity for a different outcome 
to be reached and that the public authority frequently did not specify 
the appropriate subsection of the exemption. In light of this the 
Commissioner expects the Council to take steps to minimise the 
likelihood of additional exemptions being applied during the course of 
future investigations and ensure that when it issues refusals or 
conducts internal reviews, these demonstrate that the issues have 
been thoroughly considered and explained by the authority. 
 
 
 
 

 
15


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
Right of Appeal 
 
 
61.  Either party has the right to appeal against this Decision Notice to the 
First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Information about the appeals 
process may be obtained from: 
 
First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)   
GRC & GRP Tribunals, 
PO Box 9300, 
Arnhem House, 
31, Waterloo Way, 
LEICESTER, 
LE1 8DJ 
 
Tel:  0845 600 0877 
Fax:  0116 249 4253 
Email: 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx
Website: www.informationtribunal.gov.uk 
 
If you wish to appeal against a decision notice, you can obtain 
information on how to appeal along with the relevant forms from the 
Information Tribunal website.  
 
Any Notice of Appeal should be served on the Tribunal within 28 
(calendar) days of the date on which this Decision Notice is sent.  
 
 
 
Dated the 21st day of December 2010 
 
 
 
Signed ……………………………………………….. 
 
Andrew White 
Group Manager 
Information Commissioner’s Office 
Wycliffe House 
Water Lane 
Wilmslow 
Cheshire 
SK9 5AF 
 
 
 
 
16


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
Legal Annex 
 
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 
 
General Right of Access 
 
Section 1(1) 
provides that – 
 
 
“Any person making a request for information to a public authority is 
entitled –  
 
     (a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it 
holds  
     information of the description specified in the request, and 
 
     (b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to 
him.” 
 
Effect of Exemptions 
 
Section 2(2) provides that – 
 
“In respect of any information which is exempt information by virtue of 
any provision of Part II, section 1(1)(b) does not apply if or to the 
extent that –  
 
(a)  the information is exempt information by virtue of a 
provision conferring absolute exemption, or 
 
(b)  in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in 
maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in 
disclosing the information” 
 
Time for Compliance 
 
Section 10(1) provides that – 
 
“Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply 
with section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the 
twentieth working day following the date of receipt.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17


Reference: FS50301943  
 
 
                                                                                                                               
Refusal of Request 
 
Section 17(1) 
provides that –  
 
“A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is 
to any extent relying on a claim that any provision of Part II relating to 
the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that 
information is exempt information must, within the time for complying 
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which -  
 
(a)  states that fact, 
 
(b)  specifies the exemption in question, and 
 
(c) 
states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the 
exemption applies.” 
 
Law enforcement     
 
Section 31(1) provides that –  
 
“Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is 
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be 
likely to, prejudice-  
   
(a)   the prevention or detection of crime 
 
 
18