Department for Constitutional AffairsAppointments

| People's rights | Human rights | Freedom of information | Data protection | Data sharing | Elections | Transsexual people | Your rights - DCA | Publication scheme | Open Government | Information Asset Register

|© Crown Copyright & Disclaimer

Home > Publications > Annual Reports > Freedom of Information and data protection

Freedom of Information & Data Protection

Code of Practice on Access to Government Information

Monitoring Report for 2002 - Appendix 2

Ombudsman's Investigations

October 2003

Complaints received:

In 2002, the Ombudsman received 42 complaints under the Code of Practice, nine complaints more than were received in 2001.

Complaints investigated:

The Ombudsman agreed to investigate 23 of the complaints received. In total, the Ombudsman completed 19 investigations during 2002, although one investigation, A.32/02, was discontinued as an appropriate outcome to the complaint had been achieved. Seven of the completed investigations were received in 2002. Details of the 18 investigations completed in 2002 were published in four reports: "AOI Investigations Completed - July 2001 to January 2002" (HC 585) (this volume also contains some cases completed in 2001); "AOI Investigations Completed - February to April 2002" (HC 844); and "AOI Investigations completed - May to October 2002" (HC 115) and "AOI Investigations completed - November 2002 to June 2003" (HC 951).

Summary of Investigations:

In summary, the Ombudsman upheld the Departmental decision in six cases and partly upheld the decision in eight others. The Ombudsman did not uphold the Departmental decision in four cases. In one further case (A.18/02), the Ombudsman's investigation focussed solely on the poor handling of the requests for information. A brief summary of the 19 investigations completed during 2002 is given below. Included in the summary is the date of completion, a note of whether the departmental decision was upheld and, where applicable, the exemptions cited in each case.

Investigations by Department:

1.  HM Treasury - A.6/02 7 January 2002

  • Refusal to release a list of studies about the Euro.

  • Decision: Departmental decision UPHELD. The Treasury initially cited Exemptions 2 and 10 but, during the course of the Ombudsman's investigation, they also cited Exemption 6. The Ombudsman did not find that Exemption 2 could be held to apply to the information requested but upheld the use of exemption 10. He saw no reason to assess the applicability or otherwise of Exemption 6.

  • Exemptions cited: 2, 6 and 10

2.  Department for International Development - A.10/02/ 7 January 2002

  • Refusal to provide information about whether or not a salary supplement had been paid to an expatriate working for the Zambian government.

  • Decision: Departmental decision UPHELD. The Department initially cited Exemptions 8(a) and 12 of the Code but, upon review, decided that they were not valid. However, they maintained their refusal to release the information. Following the Ombudsman's intervention, DFID cited Exemptions 4(a) and 12. The Ombudsman accepted that Exemption 4(a) could be held to apply to the information in question. He did not, therefore, see the need to consider the use of Exemption 12.

  • Exemptions cited: 4(a), 8(a), and 12

3.  Home Office - A.18/02 25 January 2002

  • Mishandling of a request for information by the United Kingdom Passport Service and the Immigration Service

  • Decision: Although the Home Office released the information requested, the Ombudsman decided to investigate this complaint due to the delay in providing the information and the poor way in which the request had been handled.

  • Exemptions cited: not applicable

4.  Economic and Social Research Council - A.21/02 28 January 2002

  • Refusal to release details of grants awarded to third parties.

  • Decision: Departmental decision UPHELD; the Council initially cited Exemptions 11, 12 and 14 of the Code. The Ombudsman found that all of the information apart from some basic details could be withheld under Exemptions 12 and 14, as well as Exemption 2, which was not cited by the Council. He did not see any merit in assessing the applicability or otherwise of Exemption 11.

  • Exemptions cited: 11, 12 and 14; the Ombudsman also considered Exemption 2

5.  Legal Services Commission - A.9/02 7 February 2002

  • Refusal to release information about a solicitor's former practice and details of cases with which he had dealt

  • Decision: Departmental decision UPHELD

  • Exemption cited: 9

6.  Home Office - A.33/01 8 March 2002

  • Refusal to release information relating to an alleged telephone conversation between the Rt Hon Peter Mandelson MP and Mr Mike O'Brien MP, as well as letters written by Mr Keith Vaz MP to the Home Office

  • Decision: Departmental decision PARTIALLY UPHELD; the Home Office cited Exemption 4(a) of the Code as they considered that Sir Anthony Hammond's inquiry would address the issue of the disclosure of the available information. The Ombudsman did not accept that Exemption 4(a) applied. However, the Ombudsman did not find any information relating to the alleged telephone conversation; the information regarding the letters written by Mr Vaz was made available to the complainant.

  • Exemption cited: 4(a)

7.  Driving Standards Agency - A.20/02 26 March 2002

  • Refusal to provide a bank of questions and answers used in the qualification examination for Approved Driving Instructors

  • Decision: Departmental decision PARTIALLY UPHELD; the Agency cited exemption 10 of the Code. However, during the course of the Ombudsman's investigation, the Agency agreed to make the information available to the complainant. The Ombudsman saw no merit in assessing whether or not Exemption 10 could have been held to apply to the information in question.

  • Exemption cited: 10

8.  Department of Health - A.5/02 28 March 2002

  • Refusal to release the estimated costs to NHS bodies of converting from the pound to the euro

  • Decision: Departmental Decision NOT UPHELD; the Ombudsman did not accept that Exemption 2 of the Code could be applied to the entirely numerical information that had been requested. The Department agreed to release all of the information requested.

  • Exemption cited: 2

9.  HM Treasury & the Foreign and Commonwealth Office- A.11/02 5 April 2002

  • Refusal to provide information about the constitutional implications of joining the European Economic and Monetary Union

  • Decision: Departmental decision UPHELD; the Ombudsman did not agree that Exemption 10 could be held to apply to the information in question, but upheld the Department's use of Exemption 2. He saw no merit in assessing whether or not Exemption 6 applied.

  • Exemptions cited: 2, 6 and 10

10.  Disability Rights Commission - A.15/02 17 April 2002

  • Failure to release information about a refusal to provide legal assistance

  • Decision: Departmental Decision PARTIALLY UPHELD; the Ombudsman agreed that some of the information requested could be withheld under Exemption 2. He also believed that Exemption 14 was relevant, as were Exemptions 4 and 12, which were not cited by the Commission. However, he found that none of these exemptions prevented the release of the remaining factual information.

  • Exemptions cited: 2 and 14; the Ombudsman also considered 4 and 12

11.  Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency- A.22/02 16 May 2002

  • Refusal to provide internal operating guidance

  • Decision: Departmental Decision PARTIALLY UPHELD; following the Ombudsman's investigation, the Agency agreed to release the majority of the information requested. The Ombudsman agreed that some information could be withheld under Exemption 2.

  • Exemptions cited: 2

12.  Driving Standards Agency - A.19/02 29 May 2002

  • Refusal to release the minutes of a meeting and the responses to a consultation paper

  • Decision: Departmental decision PARTIALLY UPHELD; the Ombudsman upheld the Agency's use of Exemption 14(a) but did not accept that Exemption 2 could be held to apply.

  • Exemptions cited: 2 and 14(a)

13.  Ministry of Defence - A.29/02 17 July 2002

  • Refusal to release information relating to the Rendlesham Forest UFO incident

  • Decision: Departmental Decision NOT UPHELD; the Ombudsman agreed that the information was covered, in principle, by Exemption 2. However, given their age and the fact that the documents contained no information not already in the public domain, the Ombudsman recommended disclosure. MOD agreed to release the information.

  • Exemption cited: 2

14.  Department for Work and Pensions - A.28/02 25 July 2002

  • Refusal to release information relating to the New Deal 25 plus pilot scheme and employment details of one of the scheme's managers

  • Decision: Departmental Decision PARTIALLY UPHELD; the Ombudsman agreed that Exemption 12 applied to some of the information requested and accepted that the Department was under no obligation to provide information not available to them. However, he did not uphold their use of Exemption 13 and saw no reason why the remaining information should not be disclosed.

  • Exemptions cited: 12 and 13

15.  Higher Education Funding Council for England - A.27/02 31 July 2002

  • Refusal to release two pages of an investigation report prepared by external consultants

  • Decision: Departmental decision UPHELD; the Ombudsman upheld the Council's use of Exemption 8, but not of Exemption 14. However, he considered that the remaining information could be withheld under Exemption 7, which was not cited by the Council.

  • Exemptions cited: 8 and 14; the Ombudsman also considered Exemption 7

16.  Ministry of Defence - A.9/03 14 August 2002

  • Refusal to release the lists of questions used in the continuous attitude surveys undertaken by each of the armed services

  • Decision: Departmental decision NOT UPHELD: the Department initially cited Exemption 2 but agreed to release the information following the Ombudsman's investigation.

  • Exemption cited: 2

17.  Ministry of Defence - A.5/03 20 August 2002

  • Refusal to release a list of countries designated as priority markets for UK defence sales

  • Decision: Departmental decision NOT UPHELD; the Ombudsman agreed that , in principle, Exemption 1(b) was applicable. However, the Ombudsman felt that the public interest would be best served by disclosure. MOD agreed to release the information.

  • Exemption cited: 1(b)

18.  Cabinet Office - A.2/03 15 October 2002

  • Failure to provide copies of progress reports on records released into the public domain under the Open Government Initiative

  • Decision: Departmental decision PARTIALLY UPHELD; the Ombudsman accepted that some of the information contained within the reports could be withheld under Exemption 2 but found that the factual elements should be released.

  • Exemption cited: 2

19.  Inland Revenue & HM Treasury - A.31/02 1 November 2002

  • Refusal to provide information about the decisions to increase the rates of stamp duty in the 1999 and 2000 budgets

  • Decision: Departmental decision PARTIALLY UPHELD; the Ombudsman accepted that some of the information requested by the complainant could be withheld under Exemption 2 of the Code but recommended that the factual elements be released.

  • Exemption cited: 2

 

 

 

© Crown Copyright