BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Information Commissioner's Office |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> East Hampshire District Council (Local government (District council)) [2015] UKICO FER0580499 (28 September 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2015/FER0580499.html Cite as: [2015] UKICO FER0580499, [2015] UKICO FER580499 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
28 September 2015, Local government (District council)
The complainant has requested information relating to a tree preservation order (a TPO). The council disclosed information in response to the request. The complainant then made a further request on the basis that he does not believe that the report which led to the TPO was correct, or that the TPO was issued by the council following the correct procedures. The council provided him with a copy of the emails which led to the TPO being issued but redacted the names of officers involved under Regulation 13(1) (personal data). When the complainant questioned whether he had received a copy of one particular email it said that it did not hold a copy of this. The council also belatedly disclosed the identity of one individual it had initially applied Regulation 13(1) to on the basis that that person had subsequently provided their consent to their identity being disclosed. The council also provided him with a copy of its delegated authority procedures. The complainant does not consider that these were followed correctly however. He therefore asked for a copy which demonstrates that the officer who signed the TPO had the delegated authority to make that decision. The council argued that the TPO was issued correctly under the delegated authority procedures it had already disclosed to him and said that no further procedures are held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 13(1) to the information. He has also decided that on the balance of probabilities it does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the requests. The Commissioner also considers that in respect of the identity of one councillor, the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose copies of unredacted emails where it had previously applied Regulation 13. The public authority 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 this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 13(1): Upheld
