Complaint against City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50)
UK Environmental Information Regulations 2004
21 December 2009 The Complainant requested information required to complete a HIP compliant CON29R.
21 December 2009 The Council responded to the Complainant. The Council referred to a previous letter sent to the complainant by its Assistant Director Corporate Services, dated 2 September 2009. The Council informed the complainant that it maintained the position set out in this letter. The letter of 2 September 2009 stated that the Council was aware that the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Local Land Charges Institute (LLCI) were seeking an opinion about access to property search information on behalf of all local authorities.
21 December 2009 The complainant requested an internal review of this decision.
22 December 2009 The Council acknowledged the request for an internal review.
5 January 2010 The Council communicated the outcome of its internal review to the complainant. The Council confirmed that it maintained the position it had set out in its initial response.
13 January 2010 Complainant refers the complaint to the Information Commissioners Office.
11 May 2010 The Information Commissioners Office contacted the Council and explained the requirements of the EIR.
12 May 2010 The Commissioner wrote to the Council and asked that it provide more detailed arguments to support its reliance on regulation 6(1)(a), and the exception at regulation 12(5)(c).
3 June 2010 The Council wrote again to the complainant on reconsidering his request under the Environmental Information Regulations (‘EIR’). The Council stated that it felt that it was reasonable to provide information in another format to the format requested by the complainant (inspection), and to make a charge for this information. The Council also stated that as it was aware that the complainant intended to re-use the information in compiling a Home Information Pack (‘HIP’), it had applied the exception at regulation 12(5)(c) to the requested information. This exception applies where disclosure would adversely affect intellectual property rights. The Council’s public interest test favoured maintaining the exception.
6 July 2010 The Council wrote to the Commissioner to provide a submission to support its reliance on regulation 6(1)(a).
26 July 2010 The Information Commissioners Office issues the Decision notice.
3 August 2010 The Information Commissioners Office issues the Decision notice.
Elapsed time = 217 days
Summary (Copied from the Decision Notice Reference: FER0288726. Date: 26 July 2010)
The complainant submitted a request to the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (‘the Council’) for information from environmental records held on a property in Thackley, Bradford. The complainant specified that he wished to view the records in person. The Council stated that the requested information could only be accessed on the provision of a fee based on the property search regulations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulation 5(1) as it failed to make information available on request and regulation 5(2) as it failed to make the requested information available within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner also found that the Council breached regulation 6(1) by failing to comply with the complainant’s request to make the information in a particular format. The Commissioner requires the Council to make the requested information available for the complainant to inspect within 35 days of this notice.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Information Commissioners Office
Reference: FER0288726
Related Cases
Complaint against Chichester District Council
Complaint against East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Complaint against Kirklees Council
Complaint against Stoke City Council
Complaint against Walsall Council
Related European-PSI-Platform news items
Local Land Charges SI 2010 No. 1812
UK PSI Charges dropped to comply with EU Directive!
ICO: 6 Decisions – Is UK Government listening?
Case last updated: 4 August 2010
- 271 reads
