Source: http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/applicationsanddecisions/Decisions/2012/201102063.aspx
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 19:43:31
Document Index: 88876658

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2']

Reference No: 201102063Decision Date: 5 September 2012
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that SPT did not hold certain of the requested information.While she agreed that SPT had been entitled to withhold most of the information from Bal-Na-Gask, she ordered SPT to disclose some personal data to Bal-Na-Gask.Relevant statutory provisions Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) sections 1(1), (4) and (6) (General entitlement); 2(1) and (2)(e)(ii) (Effect of exemptions); 17(1) (Notice that information is not held); 36(1) (Confidentiality); 38(1)(b) and (2)(a)(i) and (b) and (5) (definitions of "the data protection principles", "data subject" and "personal data") (Personal information)
4.In response to Part 2 of Bal-Na-Gask's request, SPT explained that, whilst it holds certain records relating to vehicle inspections, it does not hold the general and statistical information that had been requested in points a) to e).The information sought in point f) (concerning tendering prices and winning bidders in relation to various contracts) was provided in full. 5.SPT also disclosed a list of SPT vehicle inspections carried out in the North Lanarkshire Council area between 1 February 1998 and 31 August 2006, and the outcome of the inspection, where known.This disclosure was subject to the redaction of information considered exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA. 6.On 13 June 2011, Bal-Na-Gask wrote to SPT requesting a review of its decision.In particular, Bal-Na-Gask commented that the information that had been disclosed to it was "incomplete and censored".It identified a number of areas where it considered there to be gaps within the information supplied, and asked that an attachment to one of the emails provided be disclosed also.Bal-Na-Gask also challenged SPT's claim that it held no records ofthe meeting mentioned in point d) within Part 1 of its request.
11.With respect to the information which SPT had decided to withhold, SPT upheld its decision to redact information on the grounds that it was exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA. 12.SPT reconsidered its application of the public interest test in relation to the information to which it had applied section 36(1) of FOISA, and released certain of the documents that had previously been withheld.However, SPT continued to apply the exemption in section 36(1) to information contained in one document.
13.On 1 November 2011, Bal-Na-Gask wrote to the Commissioner, stating that it was dissatisfied with the outcome of SPT's review and applying to the Commissioner for a decision in terms of section 47(1) of FOISA. 14.The application was validated by establishing that Bal-Na-Gask had made a request for information to a Scottish public authority and had applied to the Commissioner for a decision only after asking the authority to review its response to that request. Investigation
15.On 16 November 2011, SPT was notified in writing that an application had been received from Bal-Na-Gask and was asked to provide the Commissioner with the information withheld from it. SPT responded with the information requested and the case was then allocated to an investigating officer. 16.The investigating officer subsequently contacted SPT on 8 December 2011, giving it an opportunity to provide comments on the application (as required by section 49(3)(a) of FOISA) and asking it to respond to specific questions. 17.In particular, SPT was asked to justify its reliance on the exemptions in sections 36(1) and 38(1)(b) of FOISA.It was also asked to provide submissions setting out the nature and breadth of searches carried out to determine whether relevant information was held which would address the parts of Bal-Na-Gask's request where it had identified gaps in the information disclosed.SPT was also asked to provide a copy of any records retention policy it has in place which relates to information of the types requested.
18.Having undertaken an initial review of the information supplied to the Commissioner, the investigating officer also asked SPT to confirm whether it considered that some parts fell within the terms of the request under consideration in this decision. 19.SPT responded on 17 January 2012, providing submissions explaining its application of the exemptions in sections 38(1)(b) and 36(1) of FOISA to the withheld information, and a copy of the document "Management Framework for the Disposal/Retention of Information Held by the Partnership". SPT also provided submissions explaining the searches it had carried out and why it believed it held no further information falling within the scope of Bal-Na-Gask's request for information.
22.During the investigation, SPT disclosed a complete copy of one document (35) that had previously been disclosed in redacted form.The Commissioner understands that this was received by Bal-Na-Gask on 28 February 2012.As a consequence, this will not be considered any further in this decision.SPT also disclosed additional information after it recognised that in two instances the Traffic Commissioner's initials had been withheld in error.Only the remaining withheld information within these documents has been considered in what follows. 23.Bal-Na-Gask was invited to comment on the matters raised by this case, in particular in relation to its interests in accessing the personal data which had been withheld.Bal-Na-Gask was also invited to comment on why it considered that the public interest lay in disclosure of the information withheld under 36(1) of FOISA.Bal-Na-Gask's comments were received on 2 March 2012. 24.The relevant submissions received from both SPT and Bal-Na-Gask will be considered fully in the Commissioner's analysis and findings below.
30.The Commissioner first considered whether SPT was correct to notify Bal ?Na- Gask that it did not hold any minutes of the specified meeting, and whether it had otherwise located all of the information falling within the terms of Part 1 of Bal-Na-Gask's information request. Did SPT locate all information sought within Part 1 of the request?
37.The Commissioner has therefore considered whether, at the time it received Bal-Na-Gask's request, SPT held any notes of the meeting, or the document "vehinsp340.doc". 38.SPT was asked to explain the searches that it had undertaken in order to ascertain whether it held this information.In relation to the notes of the meeting, SPT was also asked whether searches were carried out of email folders, files and notebooks of staff who had attended the meeting.
41.SPT noted that the information searched by its Legal Services and Bus Operations included all paper files held on site, six boxes of files retrieved from archives, and all electronic files available.As a result of restructuring within SPT, it had been confirmed that any relevant information would have been transferred to Bus Operations, when associated staff moves also took place.The staff member who would have been expected to retain copies of any notes of the relevant meeting had confirmed that he had searched all of his paper and electronic records and confirmed that he had been unable to trace any such notes. 42.SPT also noted that further searches had been undertaken during the review, particularly with respect to the meeting.It highlighted that the document "vehinsp340.doc" had been discussed at meetings with two Engineering Inspectors, who had searched their records, but it had not been retrieved.Files previously checked were also reviewed again. 43.During the investigation, at the request of the investigating officer, a further search was undertaken by one of the parties for the communication to which the document "vehinsp340.doc" was attached.SPT confirmed that this search also failed to locate that document. 44.Having considered all of the submissions from SPT about the searches undertaken to identify information falling within the terms of Part 1 of Bal-Na-Gask's information request, the Commissioner is satisfied that these were reasonable, and thorough, taking into consideration the range of locations where relevant information might be held.
58.With respect to the remaining information, the Commissioner will go on to address the remaining tests regarding the application of section 38(1)(b). Would disclosure of the personal data contravene the first data protection principle?
67.Bal-Na-Gask submitted that it has a legitimate interest in receiving full un-redacted copies of the documents, as the company has the right to know who wrote what about it and to whom the information was sent.Bal-Na-Gask also maintained that it has a legitimate interest in knowing who made decisions about it, especially the decision to terminate the contracts, which have impacted on the company and led to the current dispute with the Council. 68.SPT stated that it did not ask Bal-Na-Gask whether it has a legitimate interest in the information, although it considered its purpose to be clear from the terms of its correspondence.It went on to indicate that it did not consider that Bal-Na-Gask had a legitimate interest which would allow condition 6 in Schedule 2 to the DPA to be met in this case.
69.SPT maintained that the employees whose details have been redacted are relatively junior members of staff who were not party to the action between the Council and Bal-Na-Gask, and did not take any executive decisions in this regard.As such, it maintained that their personal data was not relevant.SPT submitted that the same principle applied also to the personal data of individuals who were not SPT employees. 70.Having considered the submissions from both Bal-Na-Gask and SPT, the Commissioner accepts that Bal-Na-Gask has a legitimate interest in seeking to understand the circumstances which led to the termination of the contracts that it had with the Council (managed through SPT) for the provision of school transport.The Commissioner also recognises that this understanding would be increased by knowing who wrote about the company to whom, and who made decisions about the company, especially regarding the termination of the contracts.
71.The Commissioner considers that this interest ties in with the general public interest in ensuring that SPT is accountable and transparent in its decision making in relation to the award and termination of contracts which involve spending money from the public purse. 72.The Commissioner has noted SPT's comments about the status of the individuals concerned, and its view that their identities are not relevant to Bal-Na-Gask's concerns.However, she does not accept that the observation that individuals concerned may be employed at relatively junior levels, or may not have executive responsibility for the decisions taken, prevents Bal-Na-Gask from having a legitimate interest in knowing who was involved in matters affecting it.
77.Having reviewed the personal data that has been withheld, the Commissioner considers that it would be necessary for much of the withheld personal data to be disclosed to Bal-Na-Gask to achieve these legitimate interests.However, she has distinguished between types of personal data which would and would not contribute to the achievement of its legitimate interests. 78.The Commissioner considers that in order to fully understand the matters of concern to it, Bal-Na-Gask needs to know who was involved in discussions, and their role within their respective organisations, and the full substance of what was communicated.Accordingly, she recognises that Bal-Na-Gask's legitimate interests cannot be met without the disclosure of much of the personal data under consideration in this case, including the names (and signatures and initials) and job titles of individuals concerned.
89.The Commissioner first considered the names of the individuals who are not employees of a public authority, noting that in one instance the individual concerned was the sender of a communication to SPT.In all other instances, the individuals are mentioned within communications within SPT. 90.When carrying out the balancing exercise, the Commissioner has noted that these individuals had no direct involvement or influence in decision-making regarding Bal-Na-Gask.As such, the disclosure of these names would make only a limited contribution to the pursuit of Bal-Na-Gask's legitimate interests.
91.With respect to the expectations of these individuals, the Commissioner recognises that those mentioned within (but not party to) SPT's communication may not be aware that their names are included in those documents, and so would have no expectation that their names would be disclosed in this context.The other person had written to SPT in a professional capacity, but the Commissioner accepts also that they would have limited expectation that their name would be disclosed in response to a freedom of information request. 92.On balance, the Commissioner does not agree that Bal-Na-Gask's legitimate interest in accessing this information outweighs the prejudice that would be caused to this group of data subjects' rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.She accordingly considers that such prejudice would be unwarranted and that condition 6 is not met in relation to the names of private individuals.
101.On balance, the Commissioner concludes that it would not cause unwarranted prejudice to the rights and freedoms, or legitimate interests of any of the staff concerned for their job titles to be released in response to Bal-Na-Gask's information request.Having balanced the legitimate interests of Bal-Na-Gask against those of the data subjects, taking into consideration the expectations of those individuals and the very limited intrusion into their privacy that would be caused by disclosure, the Commissioner is satisfied that, Bal-Na-Gask's legitimate interests outweigh those rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subjects. 102.The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that condition 6 can be met in relation to all of the job titles that have been withheld in this case.
106.She recognises that the responsibility and accountability for actions and decisions relating to the contracts between Bal-Na-Gask and Council rested with staff at a senior level within SPT and the Council.She considers that it could be both intrusive and distressing for more junior members of staff if they were publicly named in relation to matters that are the subject of an ongoing legal action. 107.While she recognises that Bal-Na-Gask's legitimate interests cannot be entirely fulfilled without disclosure of the names of the individuals employed in junior positions, or those not involved in decision making concerning Bal-Na-Gask, she considers that doing so would constitute and unwarranted intrusion.Having balanced the competing legitimate interests, she finds that those of Bal-Na-Gask do not outweigh the prejudice that would be caused by disclosure to this group of data subjects' rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.
108.With respect to the names of more senior employees (of SPT and the Council), the Commissioner considers that they could only reasonably have a greater expectation than their junior colleagues that their identity would be disclosed in relation to a request of the type made by Bal-Na-Gask.She considers that the senior staff hold positions in relation to which they would expect to be held accountable, to a degree publicly, through disclosures under FOISA, for their actions and decisions.Furthermore, these individuals hold (or held) positions of influence and responsibility with respect to the decisions regarding contracts with Bal-Na-Gask.While she is aware that some of these individuals have left their posts since the time of the communications under consideration, the Commissioner does not consider this fact would have a significant bearing on their expectations regarding their identification with work undertaken in their former roles. 109.The Commissioner accordingly considers that the disclosure of their identity would contribute more to Bal-Na-Gask's legitimate interests than would disclosing the identity of more junior staff, and that the senior members of staff would have fewer expectations of privacy.Since the information under consideration relates entirely to the professional activities of the individuals concerned, she considers that any intrusion into the privacy of the individuals caused by disclosure would be limited, and that, given their seniority, disclosure would be unlikely to cause distress.
110.For the names (the relevant parts of email addresses under consideration) and initials of senior Council and SPT employees, the Commissioner has concluded that disclosure would not cause unwarranted prejudice to the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subjects.On balance, she concludes that the legitimate interests of Bal-Na-Gask outweigh those legitimate interests of the staff concerned, and so condition 6 can be met in relation to these names. Conclusions regarding section 38(1)(b)
116.As noted in paragraph 56 above, she has also concluded the exemption in section 38(1)(b) was wrongly applied to the two dates that were incorrectly identified by SPT as personal data. Section 36(1) - Confidentiality
118.Section 36(1) of FOISA exempts from disclosure information in respect of which a claim to confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal proceedings.Among the types of communications which fall into this category are those which are subject to legal professional privilege.One aspect of legal professional privilege is litigation privilege, which covers documents created in contemplation of litigation (also known as communications post litem motam). 119.Communications post litem motam are granted confidentiality in order to ensure that any person or organisation involved in or contemplating a court action can prepare their case as fully as possible, without the risk that their opponents or prospective opponents will gain access to the material generated by their preparations.The privilege covers communications at the stage when litigation is pending or in contemplation.Whether a particular document was prepared in contemplation of litigation will be a question of fact, the key question generally being whether litigation was actually in contemplation at a particular time.
146.The Commissioner acknowledges that where certain information was held by SPT which would address part of these parts of Bal-Na-Gask's request, SPT has collated this and provided it to Bal-Na-Gask. 147.The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that SPT was entitled to advise Bal-Na-Gask, in terms of section 17(1) of FOISA, that it did not hold information which would fully address points a) ? e) within Part 2 of its request.
Margaret KeyseHead of Enforcement5 September 2012
Relevant statutory provisions Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection 1, the following provisions of Part 2 (and no others) are to be regarded as conferring absolute exemption ? ?
(i) any of the data protection principles; (b) in any other case, that such disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles if the exemptions in section 33A(1) of that Act (which relate to manual data held) were disregarded.
[Note ? Bal-Na-Gask's request included several points, set out in two groups and listed by letters a, b, c etc. within each group.Within this decision, the first group of requests labelled a ? d below are referred to as Part 1 of the request.The second group labelled a ? f are referred to as Part 2 ] "We are writing to make a formal request for copies of information and various records held by SPT on Bal-Na-Gask (Holdings) Ltd.