Environmental Information Regulations 2004 | A blog about Wirral Council, Wirral Council's councillors & officers

ICO issues decision notice stating Wirral Council breached 4 laws in how it handled a FOI request

Ed – 19/9/14 – ICO have uploaded the decision notice (FS50509081) to their website.

Received through the post today from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was the result of an appeal to them of an internal review of Wirral Council’s dated 30th July 2013 which related to a request made by myself on the 29th March 2013.

The whole decision goes on for nine A4 pages (plus one page accompanying letter from ICO). It’s not been published yet on ICO’s website but will be in the near future. Wirral Council (and myself) have 28 days from the date of the decision made on the 8th September 2014 to make our minds up as to whether either or both parties wishes to appeal this decision notice to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights).

Below is the text of the decision notice (but not the accompanying one page letter).

Reference: FS50509081

ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Decision notice

Date:	8 September 2014
Public Authority:	Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Address:	Wallasey Town Hall
	Brighton Street
	Wallasey
	Wirral
	CH44 8ED
Complainant	Mr John Brace
Address	Jenmaleo
	134 Boundary Road
	Bidston
	Wirral
	CH43 7PH

Decision (including any steps ordered)

———————————————————————————————————————-
1. The complainant has requested information from Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”) about the last minuted meetings that were held by 24 different committees. The council refused to comply with the requests on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit in costs set by section 12(1) Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”), and would be manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”).

2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to provide sufficient evidence for the application of section 12(1) of the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and has breached the requirement of section 16(1) of the FOIA and regulation 9(1) of the EIR by failing to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. The council has further breached section 10(1) of the FOIA and regulation 5(2) of the EIR failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.

3. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:

Issue a response to the complainant’s request that does not rely upon section 12(1) of the FOIA or regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Provide advice and assistance to the complainant about which of the requested information is held by the council, and therefore falls under the terms of the FOIA or EIR.

4. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of that fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

Request and response
———————————————————————————————————————-
5. On 29 March 2013, the complainant wrote to the council and requested the following:

“Please could you provide minutes of the previous meetings of the following committees. If minutes whether in draft form or not are not available of the previous meeting, please provide the minutes of the meeting directly before. I have given each of the committees a number in order which can be used in future communications to avoid misunderstandings.

If minutes for any of these committees are not available in electronic form and to provide them in digital form would exceed the 18.5 hours rule then I am happy to collect paper copies from Wallasey Town Hall instead.

1. Complaints Panel (School Curriculum and Related Matters)
2. Education Staff Panel
3. Headteacher Appointments Panel
4. School Appeals Panel
5. Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE)
6. Wirral Schools Forum (Funding Consultative Group)
7. School Admissions Forum
8. Adoption / Fostering Panels
9. Housing Review Panel
10. Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board
11. Discharge from Guardianship by Wirral Council under the Mental
Health Act 1983 Panel
12. Independent Remuneration Panel
13. Youth and Play Service Advisory Committee
14. Corporate Parenting Group (formerly known as Virtual School
Governing Body)
15. Headteachers and Teachers JCC
16. SEN Advisory Committee
17. Wirral Schools’ Music Service Consultative Committee
18. Members’ Training Steering Group
19. Members’ Equipment Steering Group
20. Birkenhead Park Advisory Committee
21. Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee
22. Wirral Climate Change Group
23. Anti-Social Behaviour Partnership Body
24. Birkenhead Town Centre Consultative Group
25. Wirral Trade Centre Working Party
26. Safeguarding Reference Group”

6. The council responded on 30 April 2013 and refused the requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA, but advised the information sought by request 12 was available on the council’s webpages.

7. The council provided an internal review on 30 July 2013 in which it revised its position and refused the requests under section 14(1), and further advised that the information sought by request 13 was available on the council’s webpages.

Scope of the case
———————————————————————————————————————-
8. The complainant contacted the Commissioner on 14 August 2013 to contest the council’s response.

9. Following the Commissioner writing to the council on 10 February 2014, the council further revised its position on 19 June 2014 and refused the requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The complainant subsequently advised the Commissioner that he wished to contest this new position.

10. The Commissioner has identified that the information sought by requests 12 and 13 is available on the council’s webpages. This was confirmed in the council’s initial response and subsequent internal review. The complainant has subsequently confirmed to the Commissioner that he accepts that this information is already publically available, and only wishes to contest the council’s response in respect of the remaining 24 requests.

11. The Commissioner therefore considers that the scope of this case is the determination of whether the council’s refusal under section 12(1) of the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) is correct.

Reasons for decision
———————————————————————————————————————-
Is part of the requested information environmental?

12. Information is “environmental” if it meets the definition set out in regulation 2 of the EIR. Environmental information must be considered for disclosure under the terms of the EIR. In the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner does not have sight of the requested information, but has identified that part of it derives from committees that are responsible for environmental matters, including climate change and local parkland. As such, the Commissioner considers it highly likely part of the requested information that derives from those committees would be environmental information as defined by regulation 2 of the EIR.

Section 12 (FOIA) and regulation 12(4)(b)(EIR) – Cost of compliance

13. Section 12(1) of the FOIA states that:

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.

14. The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (“the Fees Regulations”) sets the appropriate limit at £450 for the public authority in question. Under the Fees Regulations, a public authority may charge a maximum of £25 per hour for work undertaken to comply with a request. This equates to 18 hours work in accordance with the appropriate limit set out above.

15. A public authority is only required to provide a reasonable estimate or breakdown of costs and in putting together its estimate it can take the following processes into consideration:

determining whether it holds the information;
locating the information, or a document which may contain the information;
retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information; and
extracting the information from a document containing it.

16. The EIR do not have a provision where a request can be refused if the cost of complying with it would exceed a particular cost limit. Rather the EIR contain an exception, namely regulation 12(4)(b), which the public authority can rely on to refuse a request if they consider it to be ‘manifestly unreasonable’ on the basis that the cost of compliance with the request would be too great.

17. Although the Fees Regulations are not directly applicable to the EIR, in the Commissioner’s view they can provide a useful point of reference when public authorities argue that complying with a request would incur an unreasonable cost and therefore could be refused on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b).

18. However, there are additional factors that should always be considered in assessing whether the costs of complying with a request for environmental information are manifestly unreasonable, in particular the proportion of burden on the public authority’s workload (taking into consideration the size of the public authority), and the individual circumstances of the case (including the nature of the information requested and the importance of the issue at stake). In additional to these factors, regulation 12(4)(b) is also subject to a public interest test.

Can the requests be aggregated?

19. In cases were a single piece of correspondence contains multiple requests for information, the Commissioner’s position is that each request is separate. This was confirmed by the Information Tribunal in the case of Fitzsimmons v Information Commissioner and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (EA/2007/0124).

20. Under the Fees Regulations, public authorities can aggregate the cost of complying with requests if they ‘relate, to any extent’, to the same or similar information’. The Commissioner interprets this phrase broadly, and considers that providing there is an overarching theme or subject matter that connects the requests, the cost of compliance with each request can be aggregated.

21. In the circumstances of this case the Commissioner has reviewed the correspondence in which the complainant requested information, and has identified that it contains 24 numbered requests for specific information. The complainant has advised the Commissioner that he has made these requests for the purpose of ensuring transparency on the part of councillors who have taken part in committees. The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that the requests are connected through an overarching theme, and that the cost of compliance can therefore be aggregated.

Can the requests spanning different access regimes be aggregated?

22. It is the Commissioner’s position that when considering the cost of compliance under section 12(1) of the FOIA or regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, requests that clearly fall under one access regime cannot be aggregated with those that fall under the other.

23. However, when an individual request is likely to span both access regimes, then the Commissioner recognises that the initial collation of the information will incur costs before the information can be subsequently assessed to decide which access regime applies. As such, the Commissioner considers it appropriate to consider the costs of such collation under the FOIA.

24. In the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner considers it highly likely that the information sought in requests 20, 21, and 22 will include environmental information (such as that relating to the environmental remit of the committee), and non-environmental information (such as that relating to the administration of the committee). The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that it is appropriate to consider the initial collation of any held information under the FOIA.

Does the aggregated cost of compliance exceed the appropriate limit?

25. The council’s position is that the combined costs of identifying whether the information is held in response to the 24 requests, in conjunction with any ensuing costs of locating and retrieving the information, would exceed the appropriate limit of 18 hours.

26. The council has explained to the Commissioner that the requests cover a broad range of committees, many of which are advisory in nature, and have minutes that are not electronically available through the information system that the council uses to manage its committees. The council has also suggested that due to many of the committees being advisory in nature, they may not subject to the terms of the FOIA or EIR.

27. The Commissioner, in reviewing the content of the council’s response, has identified that it has not provided the results of any sampling exercise, nor has it provided a detailed time or cost estimate to support its position that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit.

28. The Commissioner has further identified that whilst committee minutes may not be directly retrievable through the normal information system that the council uses to administrate committee minutes, he considers it reasonable to consider that the information would still be contained within a relevant filling system, either manual or electronic, which would allow the council to both identify whether the information was held, and take steps to collate it.

29. The Commissioner also considers that the council’s position that a proportion of the committees are not subject to the FOIA or EIR, further weakens the council’s grounds for refusal. Should specific committees not fall under the council’s responsibility, this would suggest to the Commissioner that the council’s compliance with the requests would only comprise meeting its duty to confirm or deny whether the information is held under section 1(1) of the FOIA or regulation 5(1) of the EIR.

30. Having considered the above factors, the Commissioner has concluded that the council has not provided sufficient evidence to support its refusal under section 12(1) of the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. As the Commissioner has concluded that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is not engaged, he does not need to consider the required public interest test under regulation 12(1)(b).

Section 16 (FOIA) and regulation 9 (EIR) – Advice and assistance

31. Section 16(1) of the FOIA imposes an obligation on a public authority to provide advice and assistance to a person making a request, so far as it would be reasonable to do so. Section 16(2) states that a public authority is to be taken to have complied with the provisions in the Section 45 Code of Practice (“the Code of Practice”) in relation to the provision of advice and assistance.

32. Regulation 9(1) of the EIR likewise imposes an obligation on a public authority to advice and assistance to a person making a request, as far as it would be reasonable to do so.

33. In the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner has reviewed the council’s refusal dated 19 June 2014, does not consider that advice and assistance has taken place, despite the council refusing the request on the basis of cost. The Commissioner further considers that the council’s position that some of the relevant committees do not fall under the control of the council, suggests that advice and assistance about the extent of what information is held by the council could have been provided. Therefore, in respect of its revised position dated 19 June 2014, the council has breached section 16(1) of the FOIA and regulation 9(1) of the EIR.

Section 10(1) of the FOIA and regulations 5(2) of the EIR – Time for compliance

34. Section 10(1) of the FOIA and regulation 5(2) of the EIR requires that an information request should be responded to within 20 working days following the date of receipt. In this case a response was not provided until after that length of time. The council therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA and regulation 5(2) of the EIR.

35. Either party has the right of 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,
LEICESTER,
LE1 8DJ

Tel: 0300 1234504
Fax: 0870 739 5836
Email: GRC@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Website: www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/general-regulatory-chamber

36. 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.

37. Any Notice of Appeal should be served on the Tribunal within 28 (calendar) days of the date on which this decision notice is sent.

Signed (signature of Andrew White)
Andrew White
Group Manager
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

ICO decides soon whether my Freedom of Information request was vexatious or Wirral Council was just taking the mickey

Last year I made a Freedom of Information Act request through the whatdotheyknow.com website for minutes of various panels, statutory committees, advisory committees and working parties. All the minutes were of groups that a councillor (or councillors) sit on, but weren’t public meetings and not routinely published by Wirral Council.

The request was made on 29th March 2013. By the 29th April 2013 I had not received a reply, so I requested an internal review. On the 30th April 2013 Wirral Council responded stating that the request would be refused on the basis of exemption 12 (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) which to summarise is where a request would take longer than 18.5 hours of staff time to provide.

Wirral Council did state they would provide minutes of the Members Equipment Steering Group (they had action notes on these since the 17th July 2012) which deal with equipment for councillors to do their role such as laptops, iPads etc and minutes of the Safeguarding Reference Group. However now almost a year later they haven’t. The response also pointed out that there weren’t minutes taken of Independent Remuneration Panel meetings (which make recommendation on allowances for councillors) but that the Independent Remuneration Panel produced reports which had already been published on Wirral Council’s website.

On the same day I made it crystal clear that I just wanted minutes of the previous meetings of these groups, not all minutes of their meetings since these groups had been started (which is how Wirral Council had interpreted this request). The internal review response on the 30th July 2013 stated “The groups you mentioned are not all served by committee services nor are they groups on which the Council is the sole interested party; nor are they all groups which the Council chairs and an inquiry would have to be made to a significant number of persons and locations.” The internal review refused the request on the basis of a s.14 exemption (vexatious or repeated request). The internal review went on to state “It is clear that many of the panels you mention will be dealing with highly sensitive personal data in particular and without limitation no.s 1-4 inclusive, 8, 9, 11, 16, 23 and 26. Officer time in considering those considering the exemptions and redacting, consulting with third parties (for example the independent chairperson of the Adoption panel, representatives of other bodies on the committee) would in view of the Reviewing Officer mean that the request should have been refused under s.14. I was then at the stage (over four months after having made the request) of being at the stage where I could make an appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

It is at this point that I will point to a number of already decided cases that have a bearing on how Wirral Council should have handled this request. The Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police v The Information Commissioner (EA/2009/0029) was a case involving a refusal on s.12 grounds (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). In that case, which was an Information Tribunal case this was part of the decision “37. For all these reasons, we find a public authority cannot include the time cost of redaction when estimating its costs under regulation 4(3)(d).”

Regulation 4 of The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 state that only the following four things can be taken into account when determining whether a request will take longer than 18.5 hours:

“the costs it reasonably expects to incur in relation to the request in

(a)determining whether it holds the information,
(b)locating the information, or a document which may contain the information,
(c)retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information, and
(d)extracting the information from a document containing it.

In other words the activities that Wirral Council mention such as “officer time considering those exemptions and redacting” and “consulting with third parties” don’t fall within these four activities and don’t count towards the 18.5 hour limit.

Another case in the first-tier tribunal, Roger Conway v The Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0224) dealt with how the s.14 (vexatious or repeated requests) exemption can be used. The judgement in this case states at paragraph 17 (there’s a slight typographical error as 0 should read 10):

“17. In respect of paragraph 0 above, whether the request creates a “strain on resources”, that is not relevant to the question of whether it is vexatious. If the Council wished to argue that they ought not to be required to comply with the request on this basis, then it ought to have relied on section 12 FOIA. It did not do so. In any event, as discussed at paragraph 10 above, the Commissioner considered whether the request would create a significant burden (strain) on the Council and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support this factor.”

In other words, Wirral Council’s arguments when they refused it as a vexatious request that it would create the sort of “strain on resources” referred to in Roger Conway v The Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0224) wasn’t relevant to the question of whether it’s vexatious and was the basis of Wirral Council’s argument that it was. Roger Conway v The Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0224) states that if a public authority wants to refuse such a Freedom of Information Act request then it should rely on a section 12 exemption (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). However if Wirral Council has to rely on a s.12 exemption in this case then Regulation 4 of the The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 and Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police v The Information Commissioner (EA/2009/0029) state that it can’t count activities such as “officer time considering those exemptions and redacting” and “consulting with third parties” towards the 18.5 hour limit.

So I appealed Wirral Council’s decision to the Information Commissioner’s Office. I received a response from the Information Commissioner’s Office last week that it had written to Wirral Council about this request twice, but had not yet received a reply. The Information Commissioner’s Office released the copies of the letters to me it has sent to Wirral Council and not received a reply to but with the Wirral Council officer’s name redacted. Interestingly the Information Commissioner’s Office have decided that some of the request falls under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, which unlike the Freedom of Information Act 2000 have a presumption in favour of disclosure.

PROTECT

15th August 2013

Case Reference Number FS50509081

Dear [redacted council officer name],

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’)
Complaint from John Brace
Information request made 29 March 2013

The Information Commissioner has received a complaint about the handling of the above request.

We have carried out an initial assessment of this case and consider it eligible for formal consideration under s50 of the Act.

The case will be allocated to a case officer who will contact you with further details of the complaint.

We emphasise that although we have assessed the complaint as being eligible for the Information Commissioner to decide whether a public authority has dealt with a request for information in accordance with Part I of the Act, no specific decision has been made as to the individual merits of the complaint at this time.

What actions may be required at this stage

Where information has been withheld because you (the public authority) have applied one of the exemptions in Part 2 of the Act, the case officer will need to have a copy of the information to judge whether or not any exemptions have been properly applied. We would also appreciate, where you are able, for you to be specific about which exemptions apply to each part of the information. At this stage we only ask that you prepare this information: please do not send it to us until it is requested by the case officer.

Providing information to the ICO

Finally, you should be aware that the Information Commissioner often receives requests for copies of the letters we send and receive when dealing with casework. Not only are we obliged to deal with these in accordance with the access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), it is in the public interest that we are open, transparent and accountable for the work that we do.

However, whilst we want to disclose as much information as we reasonably can, there will be occasions where full disclosure would be wrong. It is also important that the disclosures we make do not undermine the confidence and trust in the Commissioner of those who correspond with him.

I would be grateful if, at the appropriate time, you would indicate whether any of the information you provide in connection with this matter is confidential, or for any other reason should not be disclosed to anyone who requests it. I should make clear that simply preferring that the information is withheld may not be enough to prevent disclosure. You should have a good reason why this information should not be disclosed to anyone else and explain this to us clearly and fully.

If you need to contact us about any aspect of this complaint please call our helpline on 0303 123 1113, or 01625 545745 if you would prefer not to call an ‘03’ number, being sure to quote the reference number at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny Sanders
Sent on behalf of
Andrew White
Group Manager
Complaints Resolution
Information Commissioner’s Office

=======================================================================================================

PROTECT

10 February 2014

Case Reference Number FS50509081

Dear [redacted council officer name]

Please find attached a letter 1/3 – regarding a complaint by Mr John Brace to the ICO.

Yours sincerely

Daniel Perry
Case Officer – Complaints Resolution
Direct Dial: 01625 545 214

=======================================================================================================

[redacted council officer name]

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Merseyside
CH44 8ED

10 February 2014

Case reference number FS50509081

Dear [redacted council officer name]

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR)

Complainant: Mr John Brace

Your Ref: None given to complainant, but subject matter is listed as ‘Minutes of previous meetings of 26 panels’

We wrote to you previously to let you know that we have accepted a complaint from Mr Brace (“the complainant”). The complaint concerns the refusal to comply with a request for information under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”).

Having reviewed the nature of the complainant’s request for information, we will need to consider this case under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”), as well as the FOIA. The EIR provides the public with a right to information held by authorities that relates to the environment. The EIR apply in this case due to parts 20-22 of the request. Your obligations as a public authority are similar to those under the FOIA.

I can see that [redacted council officer name] contacted us on 16 August 2013 to ask for the CRM number, apologies that she did not receive a response. Cases are held in a queue until they are allocated to a case officer. From what I can see on the documents provided by Mr Brace (as detailed below) there is no CRM number. However the correspondence can be viewed at:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/minutes_of_various_panels_statut

ICO’s approach

On receipt of a complaint under the FOIA and EIR, the Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) will give a public authority one opportunity to justify its position to him before coming to a conclusion. Please consider the guide for public authorities on the Commissioner’s website for more information about how we handle complaints:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information/guide.aspx

The request

On 29 March 2013 the complainant made the following request for information:

Please could you provide minutes of the previous meetings of the
following committees. If minutes whether in draft form or not are
not available of the previous meeting, please provide the minutes
of the meeting directly before. I have given each of the committees
a number in order which can be used in future communications to
avoid misunderstandings.

If minutes for any of these committees are not available in
electronic form and to provide them in digital form would exceed
the 18.5 hours rule then I am happy to collect paper copies from
Wallasey Town Hall instead.

You responded on 30 April 2013 and refused the request under section 12.

The complainant then requested an internal review on 30 April 2013, which you provided on 30 July 2013. You revised your position and refused the request under section 14(1).

Scope of the case

The complainant contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (“the ICO”) on 14 August 2013 to contest the council’s refusal.

The focus of my investigation will be to determine whether the council handled the request in accordance with the FOIA and EIR.

Specifically, I will look at whether the council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) as a basis for not providing a response to the request for information.

What you need to do now

Where possible the Commissioner prefers complaints to be resolved by informal means, and we ask both parties to be open to compromise. It is also your responsibility to satisfy the ICO that you have complied with the law. The ICO’s website has guidance which you should refer to in order to check whether your original response to the information request was appropriate.

This is your opportunity to finalise your position with the ICO. With this in mind, you should revisit the request. After looking at our guidance, and in light of the passage of time, you may decide to reverse or amend your position. If you do, please notify the complainant and me within the timeframe specified at the end of this letter. This may enable us to close this case informally without the need for a decision notice.

In any event, we need the following information from you to reach a decision.

Section 14(1) of the FOIA – Vexatious requests, and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR – manifestly unreasonable

In determining whether a request is vexatious, the ICO believes that the key question which public authorities need to consider is whether complying with the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. Where this is not clear, public authorities should weigh the impact on the authority and balance this against the purpose and value of the request. Where relevant, public authorities will need to take into account wider factors such as the background and history of the request.

The ICO has published guidance on applying section 14(1) of FOIA which includes information on how to apply to this balancing exercise. Our approach to manifestly unreasonable requests under the EIR is very similar. You are strongly advised to review this guidance before responding to this letter.

As this guidance explains, when determining whether section 14(1) or regulation 12(4)(b) has been applied correctly the ICO will primarily look for evidence that the request would have an unjustified or disproportionate effect on the public authority.

Therefore, in light of this please explain why in the circumstances of this case the council relied on section 14(1) and regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. Your response should include:

Details of the detrimental impact of complying with the request;
Why this impact would be unjustified or disproportionate in relation to the request itself and its inherent purpose or value;
And, if relevant, details of any wider context and history to the request if the council believes that this background supports its application of section 14(1) and regulation 12(4)(b). Please provide any relevant documentary evidence background evidence to support such a claim.

We strongly recommend that your response is guided by recent decision notices, our guidance and our lines to take, which demonstrate the Commissioner’s approach to the exemptions and procedural sections of the FOIA and EIR. These can be found on our website:

http://www.ico.org.uk/tools_and_resources/decision_notices.aspx

http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information/guide/refusing_a_request.aspx

http://www.ico.org.uk/foikb/index.htm

Having revisited the request, you may decide to apply a new exemption. We will consider new exemptions but it is your responsibility to tell the complainant why the new exemption applies and to provide us now with your full submissions.

For the avoidance of doubt, you should now do the following.

Consider whether to change your response to the information request, and let us know the outcome.
Send us your full and final arguments as to why you think section 14(1) and regulation 12(4)(b) applies.

To contact us

Please provide your response within 20 working days of the date of this letter, that is by 10 March 2014,ensuring that you fully set out your final position in relation to this request.

You can contact me at casework@ico.org.uk. Please ensure that you reply directly to this email address without changing any of the details in the subject box. This will ensure that the correspondence is allocated immediately to the correct case.

Yours sincerely

Daniel Perry

Case Officer – Complaints Resolution

Direct Dial: 01625 545 214

You should be aware that the Information Commissioner often receives requests for copies of the letters we send and receive when dealing with complaints. Please indicate whether any of the information you provide in connection with this matter is confidential, or for any other reason should not be disclosed to anyone who requests it. You should provide a good reason why this information should not be disclosed to anyone else and explain this to us clearly and fully.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

39 ICO decision notices, 2 monitoring periods & a scrutiny review, is Wirral Council response to FOI requests better?

On Thursday I wrote about the Transformation and Resource’s Policy and Performance Committee’s Scrutiny Review on Freedom of Information.

Scrutiny reviews are not held in public. It could be argued that scrutiny review panels are subcommittees of their parent committee, therefore as a subcommittee they should meet in public. Although Wirral Council’s constitution states that citizens have the right to “participate in the Council’s question time and contribute to investigations by the Policy and Performance committees”, this scrutiny review was just officers and councillors meeting behind closed doors and there is no mention of anyone else being involved such as councillors actually talking to people who make Freedom of Information requests to Wirral Council.

Councillors seem to just be relying on information from Wirral Council employees (which then appears in their final report. The report mentions the monitoring action undertaken by the Information Commissioner’s Office between January and March of 2013 and July to September of the same year.

The way things are written in the report are a little misleading too, for example “The scrutiny review was conducted to ensure Wirral Council is moving in the right direction to manage Freedom of Information in compliance with the Information Commissioner’s Office.” Wirral Council have legal requirements to comply with the Freedom of Information legislation, whereas this sentence implies that Wirral Council just have to persuade the Information Commissioner’s Office that they’re improving and everything will be OK.

Recommendation one renames what used to be called the Freedom of Information departmental leads as “Freedom of Information Champions”. It also means that each champion will have a deputy and receive training and hopes this will be done by December 2014. Maybe the training is to try to speed up requests by the “Freedom of Information Champions” not having to ask Wirral Council’s legal department so much whether exemptions apply. However with so many exemptions and existing cases which determine the interpretation of how these exemptions should be applied (as well as guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office as to how exemptions should be applied) I still think that “Freedom of Information Champions” will be asking Wirral Council’s legal department for advice in the future.

Recommendation two (Freedom of Information Champions access to the customer relationship management software) should also include their deputies too if it’s going to be effective. If a request is made to Streetscene by email then an automatic email is sent out allocating a case number. I really don’t understand why this couldn’t be the case with Freedom of Information requests made via email and why they have to be entered manually which leads into recommendation three. If this is already being done for Streetscene requests why does they need a “technical solution identified” and “proper business case developed”? I have no problem with Wirral Council using case management software for freedom of information requests as it would save staff time.

Recommendation four refers to Freedom of Information performance information supplied to the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group. Rather ironically Surjit Tour deems minutes of the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group to be exempt from Freedom of Information requests under s.36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) yet the scrutiny review “identified specific improvements to the performance information presented to” “the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group”.

Recommendation five states that the percentage of Freedom of Information requests responded to within twenty days (broken down at department and directorate level too) should be included in the information going to the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group.

Recommendation six is interesting as it suggests “identifying emerging themes and trends” of all Freedom of Information requests received by Wirral Council and publishing this information as well as including it in the Council’s publication scheme. It refers to other bodies publishing Freedom of Information requests. Wirral Council could go further than this and publish (with the requester’s details removed) its responses to Freedom of Information requests. This forms part of recommendation seven (but only for commonly asked requests). Problems with the search function on Wirral Council’s website leading to Freedom of Information requests for information that is already published is referred to. Recommendation eight recommends that the search function should be improved.

This particular paragraph in the report (page eleven) states what was known already, that Wirral Council involves its press department over some Freedom of Information requests.

“The Panel was interested in how departments dealt with disclosing information that could be deemed sensitive or damaging. Officers explained that if any exemptions to information being disclosed were to be applied, as defined by the Freedom of Information Act, these could be made by departments. Advice from either the Information and Central Services Manager or the Head of Legal and Democratic Services is available if required. The Council has a legal duty to disclose information and reputational damage does not enter into the equation. There is a quality assurance process by Legal and Member Services and, where appropriate, Press and Public Relations.”

However the following areas of Freedom of Information requests are either only referred to briefly or not at all. The only reference to internal reviews is “The hours and respective costs for Legal Services also includes: The additional time and resources expended by solicitors dealing with internal reviews”. No mention is made over the fact that there have been freedom of information requests made to Wirral Council where the requester has submitted an internal review request and even years later has not received a response! Although the Information Commissioner’s Office suggests (if memory serves me correctly) a maximum time of forty days for internal reviews, there is no specific time limit for internal reviews specified in the legislation and in the past Wirral Council has taken full advantage of it by effectively ignoring internal review requests for requests it doesn’t wish to be answered or appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Once Wirral Council has completed an internal review, the requester can appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The past four years have seen the Information Commissioner’s Office issue thirty nine decision notices about Freedom of Information requests made to Wirral Council. Most appeals are upheld. Here’s a brief summary of each decision notice.

Decision notice FS50141012 3/3/08 Wirral Council claimed a s.43 (commercial interests) exemption, then a s.22 (information intended for future publication) exemption. The Information Commissioner’s Office disagreed with both (complaint upheld).

Decision notice FS50234468 18/5/10 Wirral Council claimed a s.14 (vexatious) exemption. The Information Commissioner considered that Wirral Council should’ve considered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations and therefore breached Regulation 14(3) by not providing an adequate refusal notice.

Decision notice FER0262449 22/11/10 The Information Commissioner’s Office found Wirral Council had failed to comply with regulation 5(1), 5(2) and 6(1).

Decision notice FS50398901 21/11/11 Wirral Council claimed a s.12 (Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) exemption. The information was later supplied to the requester after the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved. The Information Commissioner’s Office said that Wirral Council breached s. 10 by not supplying the information within twenty working days.

Decision notice FS50414910 15/11/11 Wirral Council failed to provide a response to a request within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50414911 15/11/11 Once again Wirral Council failed to provide a response to a request within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50414915 15/11/11 Wirral Council didn’t provide a response to a request within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50414916 15/11/11 A response to a request was not provided by Wirral Council within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50406724 15/2/12 Wirral Council claimed a s. 40 (personal information) exemption. The Information Commissioner’s Office disagreed that a s.40 exemption applied and required Wirral Council to provide the information to the requester.

Decision notice FER0422498 8/5/12 Wirral Council claimed they didn’t have to release the information because of exemptions under Regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(b). The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed that this applied to some of the information, but decided that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the exemptions claimed under Regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) and therefore required Wirral Council to release some of the information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0117 was allowed.

Decision notice FS50416628 13/8/12 The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act. It required Wirral Council to disclose the information and reminded Wirral Council of Greenwood v ICO (EA/2011/0131 & 0137).

Decision notice FS50428877 30/8/12 Wirral Council relied on a s.36(2)(b)(i) and s.36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) exemption. Once the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved Wirral Council also claimed an exemption under s.40 (personal information). The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed that some information would fall under a s.40 exemption, however disagreed that either a s.36 or s.40 exemption applied to the rest of the information. The Information Commissioner’s Office found that Wirral Council had breached 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and required Wirral Council to supply the information it didn’t agree was covered by the s.40 exemption.

Decision notice FS50435531 16/8/12 The requester made various requests to Wirral Council to which it failed to respond to within twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the requests.

Decision notice FS50440547 16/8/12 Various requests were made that were not answered by Wirral Council. The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that this breached s.10(1) and required Wirral Council to answer the requests.

Decision notice FS50440548 16/8/12 The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to answer the requests made by the requester as they had not done so within the twenty working days.

Decision notice FS50440553 16/8/12 Wirral Council failed to respond to various requests within the twenty day time limit. The Information Commissioner’s Office saw this as a breach of s.10(1) and required Wirral Council to respond to the requests.

Decision notice FS50440555 14/8/12 Wirral Council stated it didn’t hold the information requested. During the course of the investigation Wirral Council provided the requester with the names of staff requested. However as this information was recalled from memory it fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore the Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council’s view that it did not hold the information requested.

Decision notice FS50445302 10/10/12 Wirral Council did not provide a response to the Freedom of Information Act request or a refusal notice. The Information Commissioner’s Office required it to either respond to the request or provide a refusal notice to the requester.

Decision notice FS50430602 22/11/12 Wirral Council stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Information Commissioner’s decision was that on the balance of probabilities it did not.

Decision notice FS50438500 29/11/12 Wirral Council refused a request claiming a s.40 (personal data) exemption applied. It later disclosed information on the severance payments to two individuals. The Information Commissioner agreed with Wirral Council that a s.40 exemption applied, however ruled that Wirral Council had breached 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act by taking longer than twenty days to respond and a further breach of 10(1) by taking longer than twenty days to disclose the information on severance payments. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0264 was dismissed.

Decision notice FS50468400 30/4/13 Wirral Council relied on a s.40 (personal data) exemption. Once the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved, Wirral Council stated that the information was publicly available. The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.1(1)(a), s.1(1)(b) and s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and upheld the complaint.

Decision notice FS50468862 23/5/13 The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50470254 4/6/13 The Information Commissioner’s Office disagreed with Wirral Council’s interpretation that a s.40 (personal data) exemption applied to information which contained names of its employees. It found that Wirral Council was in breach of s.10 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to release the information requested by the requester that it didn’t agree that the s.40 exemption applied to.

Decision notice FER0488228 5/8/13 The requester requested an independent viability assessment report in relation to a planning application for a site on Ingleborough Road, Birkenhead. Wirral Council released some information from the report but relied on an exemption in Regulation 12(5)(e) in the Environmental Information Regulations over the rest of the information. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council’s application of the exemption in Regulation 12(5)(e), but ruled that Wirral Council had breached regulations 5(2) and 11(4).

Decision notice FS50475685 15/8/13 Wirral Council refused a request relying on an exemption under s.40 (personal data). The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council’s use of the exemption but ruled that Wirral Council had breached s. 10(1) by not providing a response within twenty days.

Decision notice FS50485049 8/8/13 The Commissioner’s decision was that, on the balance of probabilities, Wirral Borough Council did not hold the requested information so the complaint was not upheld.

Decision notice FS50482286 9/9/13 Wirral Council refused a request relying on exemptions in s.32 (court records, etc) and s.40 (personal information). Once the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved Wirral Council decided not to rely on s.32 (court records, etc) and released the document with the names redacted. The Information Commissioner ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) by not providing a response within twenty days.

Decision notice FS50512385 26/9/13 The Information Commissioner found that Wirral Council had breached s. 10(1) by not providing a response and required Wirral Council to provide a response.

Decision notice FS50474741 3/10/13 Wirral Council refused a request relying on exemptions in s.41 (information provided in confidence) and s.42 (legal professional privilege). During the Commissioner’s investigation Wirral Council dropped its reliance on s.42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decided that Wirral was not entitled to rely on section 41 in relation to some of the information, as it was not provided by another party and had not provided sufficient justification for the application of section 41 to the remainder of the information. It required Wirral Council to disclose the requested information.

Decision notice FS50478733 30/10/13 In response to a request Wirral Council linked to some information in the public domain but claimed a s.40 (personal information) exemption applied to the rest. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it released a further three documents to the complainant. The Information Commissioner ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) as its response to the complainant had taken longer than twenty days.

Decision notice FS50491264 8/10/13 Wirral Council relied on s.14 (vexatious or repeated requests) to refuse a request. The Information Commissioner disagreed that a s.14 exemption applied to the requested information and that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to issue a fresh response without relying on a s.14 (vexatious or repeated request) exemption.

Decision notice FS50496446 17/10/13 The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) by not providing a response within twenty working days.

Decision notice FS50501894 18/12/13 Wirral Council refused a request using a s.40 exemption (personal information). The Information Commissioner decided that s.40 wasn’t engaged and therefore couldn’t be used to withhold the information. It ruled that Wirral Council issued a refusal notice outside of the twenty days breaching s.17(1). It required Wirral Council to provide the information.

Decision notice FS50489913 13/1/14 Wirral Council stated that it did not hold information in response to a request. The Commissioner’s decision was that the Council is likely to hold relevant information so had therefore breached sections 1 and 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. Wirral Council was required to issue a fresh response to the complainant.

Decision notice FS50496910 15/1/14 Wirral Council refused a request relying on an exemption in s.40 (personal information). During the Commissioner’s investigation, Wirral Council provided some of the information requested. The Commissioner agreed that Wirral Council had correctly applied the s.40 exemption to the rest of the information but that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) by not providing the information it did provide within twenty days of the original request.

Case FS50506771 11/2/14 Wirral Council refused a request stating that a s.40 (personal information) exemption applied. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed but ruled that Wirral Council had issued a refusal notice outside the twenty day period breaching s. 10(1).

Case FS50506844 11/2/14 Wirral Council stated that information requested was not held. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed but ruled that Wirral Council had provided a response outside the twenty day period breaching s. 10(1).

Decision notice FS50502536 19/3/14 Wirral Council claimed that in response to a request that exemptions under s.40 (personal information) and s. 42 (legal professional privilege) applied. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed that Wirral Council had correctly applied the s.40 exemption, however as its response was outside the twenty day limit ruled it had breached s.10(1).

Decision notice FS50506802 26/3/14 Wirral Council had not provided a response to a request within twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office found that Wirral Council had breached s. 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

ICO issues decision notice stating Wirral Council breached 4 laws in how it handled a FOI request

Share this:

ICO decides soon whether my Freedom of Information request was vexatious or Wirral Council was just taking the mickey

Share this:

39 ICO decision notices, 2 monitoring periods & a scrutiny review, is Wirral Council response to FOI requests better?

Share this: