First FoI decision published on Information Tribunal website

Anyone who is not content with a decision from the UK Information Commissioner can appeal to the Information Tribunal - no such tribunal exists in Scotland. The first FoI decision has now been published on the Information Tribunal's website and overturns the Information Commissioner's decision:

EDWARD ANTHONY BARBER (Appellant) and THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (Respondent)

Extracts: "In a letter dated 3 February 2005 Mr Barber requested that the Inland Revenue disclose what action it had taken in relation to several examples of what he described as maladministration and failed standards in respect of the prioritisation of identifiable Self Assessment(SA) refunds between the date of the introduction of self assessment and June 2003...

"The Inland Revenue did not agree with Mr Barber s assertion of failed standards and in a letter of 17 February David Varney the Chairman of the Inland Revenue stated that they therefore have no information on this to provide you with. Mr Barber then wrote two further letters attempting to clarify his request which resulted in the Inland Revenue in effect confirming their refusal of the request...

"The Commissioner, through one of his Complaints Resolution Officers, concluded in the letter of 16 May that the Inland Revenue can reasonably and correctly state that they have no information to provide and are thus unable to meet your request. The Commissioner in the Decision Notice supported the view that the Inland Revenue were thus unable to meet Mr Barber's request...

"If Public Authorities are permitted under the FOIA to pick and choose which requests they respond to on the basis of whether or not they approve of the language used by requesters, this would make a mockery of the legislation...

"The Commissioner in his Notice finds that Mr Barber's request for information is framed in general and subjective terms focusing on the complainant s opinions of the alleged actions of the Inland Revenue and, in effect, because the Inland Revenue did not accept those opinions they were justified in refusing the request...

"Mr Boyd for the Information Commissioner in his evidence admitted that Mr Barber in common with many who have complained to the Commissioner use strong language arising from their frustration with dealing with complaints against a public authority, but that would not in itself invalidate the request...

"We find that Mr Barber had a genuine and unfulfilled requirement to know what actions had taken place in relation to the prioritising of refunds of overpaid tax. This we consider was an integral part of the initial request by Mr Barber which the Inland Revenue should have been able to determine from Mr Barber's three letters in February 2005. As a result we find the Commissioner was wrong in law to find that the Inland Revenue have no information to provide in response to his request . Alternatively, to the extent that the Notice involved an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner we find that he ought to have exercised his discretion differently. This, in effect, was a finding by the Commissioner that Mr Barber s request was an ineffective request under s1 FOIA, based on the form of that request. We do not agree with this finding, based on our findings of fact..."

Mr E A Barber v The Information Commissioner (PDF, 34 KB, Information Tribunal website, 11 November 2005)

Previous, unreported decision by the Information Tribunal:
Trial files secrecy rap for council (Bridgnorth Journal, 14 October 2005)

0 comments: