British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Information Commissioner's Office
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Garforth Community College (Decision Notice) [2006] UKICO FS50088779 (22 November 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2006/FS50088779.html
Cite as: [2006] UKICO FS50088779
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Garforth Community College (Decision Notice) [2006] UKICO FS50088779 (22 November 2006)
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to bullying complaints at the College and also information about 3 teachers at the College. The College stated that it did not hold information relating to bullying complaints and refused to provide information requested about 3 teachers on the grounds that disclosure would contravene the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA98). The Commissioner has decided that the College did, in fact, hold bullying complaints information. In failing to explain this to the complainant, the College contravened the requirements of Section 1(1) of the FOI Act. However, the Commissioner has found that location, retrieval and extraction of this information in order to provide it under the FOI Act would exceed the appropriate limit of £450. This limit would be exceeded where it would take the College more than 18 hours work to locate, retrieve and extract the requested information at the specified calculation rate of £25/hour. The Commissioner has also decided that the College should have cited the specific exemption it sought to rely on (Section 40(3)(a)(ii) -“ Disclosure would contravene DPA98 Section 10) when refusing to provide information about 3 teachers. In failing to specify the exemption it sought to rely on, the College contravened the requirements of Section 17(1)(b) of the FOI Act. In addition, the specific exemption it sought to rely on is qualified by a public interest test. The Commissioner has also decided that the College should have explained why it considered that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the requested information. In failing to explain its position with regard to the balance of public interest the College contravened the requirements of Section 17(3) of the FOI Act. In any event, in the Commissioner-™s view, the information relating to the 3 teachers is exempt from disclosure under a different exemption (Section 40(3)(a)(i) -“ Disclosure would contravene a DPA98 data protection principle). This exemption is not qualified by a public interest test.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld