Complaint against East Riding of Yorkshire Council

Decision Notice Published 31 July 2009 by the UK Information Commissioners Office

Legal basis

  • UK Freedom of Information Act 2000
  • UK Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Key dates of the case

  • 16.01.09 The Complainant made request for information to East Riding of Yorkshire Council (The public sector information holder).
  • 30.01.09 East Riding of Yorkshire Council responded to the Complainant under the Freedom of Information Act and stated that the information was not environmental information and did not release the information.
  • 3.02.09 Complainant responded to East Riding of Yorkshire Council requesting an internal review of the Council’s decision and further clarified the request.
  • 15.02.09 East Riding of Yorkshire Council responded and disagreed with the Complainant.
  • 17.02.09 The complainant lodged an appeal with the UK Information Commissioners Office.
  • 26.03.09 East Riding of Yorkshire Council wrote to the Information Commissioners Office with copy to the Complainant.
  • 30.03.09 The Complainant wrote to the Information Commissioners Office about the letter and East Riding of Yorkshire Council latest position regarding the charge for Environmental Information.
  • 15.05.09 The Information Commissioner requested the East Riding of Yorkshire Council to provide the withheld information to the Information Commissioners Office.
  • 2.06.09 The Information Commissioner asked the East Riding of Yorkshire Council what records had been inspected to provide the answer supplied from the 15 May 2009 request.
  • 8.07.09 The Information Commissioners Office contacted the East Riding of Yorkshire Council to clarify the Councils position.
  • 27.07.09 UK Information Commissioners Office issues decision notice in favour of the complainant.
  • 31.07.09 Information Commissioner publishes decision notice on the ICO July Decision notices web page.
  • 20.08.09 The Council appeals to the Information Tribunal (Name of Tribunal changed 2010)
  • 28.09.09 The Tribunal issued directions for the disposal of the Appeal.
  • 26.01.10 Day 1 of the hearing of the Council’s appeal in the First-Tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber (Information Rights) Case No. EA/2009/0069
  • 27.01.10 Day 2 of the hearing of the Council’s appeal in the First-Tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber (Information Rights) Case No. EA/2009/0069
  • 15.03.10 Judge publishes decision on the Council’s appeal in the First-Tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber (Information Rights) Case No. EA/2009/0069

Elapsed time of case = 422 calendar days

Online decisions and public reporting

Information Commissioners Office – July 2009 Decisions

The published Decision notice from the Information Commissioners Office web site

Outline of Case

Summary (Copied from the Decision Notice Reference: FER0236058)

"The complainant made a request to inspect the building control and traffic schemes information within 200 metres of a named address. The Council agreed to provide the information requested but only on the provision of a fee based on the property search regulations. The Council argued that it was allowed to charge for the information under regulation 8(1) as the information was not in a public register and could not be inspected without further collation by the Council. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the request is a request to inspect environmental information but that the Council cannot charge for the information by virtue of regulation 8(2)(b). The Council must make the information available for inspection in accordance with regulation 5(1) within 35 calendar days of this notice."

--

Decision of the First-Tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber (Information Rights) Case No. EA/2009/0069 (copied from the 44 page Decision document)

The appeal is dismissed and the Decision Notice date 27th July 2009 is to stand.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. We have decided that the Information Commissioner was right to decide that East Riding of Yorkshire Council (“the Council”) should have made available for inspection, without charge, certain information on the impact of building regulations and traffic/highways control on a particular property. On the basis of the Information Commissioner’s interpretation of the scope of the request for information, which we consider to have been correct, the Council’s stance in refusing to permit inspection of the information was not reasonable under regulation 6 (1) (a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”).

2. this case started as an appeal to the Information Tribunal. However, by virtue of the Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2010, the Tribunal which has decided it is now constituted as a First-tier Tribunal.

Background

3. There has been a long established practice in England and Wales that, before residential or commercial property is purchased, the purchaser carries out what is commonly called a “local search”. The local authority would be requested to conduct a search of the Land Charges Register which it maintained and to answer certain questions designed to establish whether the property in question was, or might become, affected by certain activities which the local authority knew about. A standard set of questions was developed over the years by the Law Society and was incorporated in a standard form, known as Form CON29R. This would be sent to the relevant local authority with the appropriate fee and returned in due course completed to show the information and answers provided. Since the introduction of Home Information Packs in 2007 it is the seller, and not the buyer, who carries out local searches.

4. It is possible to obtain the answers to most, but not all, of the questions set out in Form CON29R by inspecting various public registers maintained by local authorities, as well as from other sources. A number of private organisations have developed services for obtaining the necessary information in this way and providing it to property sellers and those advising them. One such personal search company is Stanley Davis Group Limited. It provides its service under the trading name “York Place” and we will refer to it by that trading name in this decision.”

“Conclusion and remedy

49. In light of our findings as set out above the Information Commissioner was entitled to conclude that the Council had not complied with its obligations under EIR regulation 5(1). The information covered by the Request, being the information required to answer the questions 1.1 (f) – (h), 3.4 and 3.6 of form CON29R, should have been made available for inspection by York Place when requested and should now be disclosed.

50. Our decision is unanimous.

51. An appeal against this decision may be submitted to the Upper Tribunal. A person seeking permission to appeal must make a written application to the Tribunal for permission to appeal within 28 days of receipt of this decision. Such an application must identify the error or errors of law in the decision and state the result the party is seeking.”

Case Notes

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

Information Commissioners Office

First-Tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber (Information Rights)

First-Tier Tribunal Decision Notice 15th March 2010 (44 pages)

Information Rights

The First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) deals with appeals against decisions of the Information Commissioner in respect of Freedom of Information, Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications, and Environmental Information.

Freedom of Information Act – Requests

The Councils response (WORD File) to an FOI request that asked how much the Council spent on defending the case on the 27th August 2010 states that the Council spent “£14,981.27. This was the amount paid out in barristers fees.”

Related European-PSI-Platform news items

ICO makes landmark decision

Tribunal decision triggers PSI policy rethink

Case last updated: 28 August 2010