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