Information Commissioner's Office

Summary: The complainant made a request to Thames Valley Police (-�the public authority-�) for information about a police officer, a named individual, an alleged statement made about the complainant and alleged personal surveillance of him. The public authority originally neither confirmed nor denied that it held most of the information by virtue of section 40(5); it claimed further information was -�not held-�. This position was revised to withholding some information by virtue of section 40(2), this same information being subsequently disclosed during the investigation. The public authority also further amended its position during the investigation and stated that the information which it had originally claimed was -�not held-� should also have been exempted under section 40(5). The Commissioner-�s decision is that the public authority was correct to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information requested by virtue of sections 40(5)(a) and 40(5)(b)(i). The complaint is not upheld. The public authority-�s handling of the request also resulted in breaches of certain procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0084 struck out.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld