Mr David Markinson and The Information Commissioner (2006)
David Markinson and Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council
UK Freedom of Information Act 2000
UK Environmental Information Regulations 2004
25.01.05 David Markinson inspected the building records for his house at the offices of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council. Mr. Markinson requested copies of the records for which the Council levied a charge.
25.01.05 David Markinson submitted complaint to the Information Commissioners Office about the charges levied by Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council earlier that day.
7.02.05 The Information Commissioners Office sends letter to the Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council seeking details.
10.02.05 Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council replies by letter to the Information Commissioners Office.
7.03.05 Information Commissioners Office responds by letter to the Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council letter.
1.04.05 The Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council publishes a revised fee schedule that increased the fees.
4.05.05 The Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council responds by letter to the Information Commissioners letter.
17.08.05 Mr Markinson lodged an appeal with the Tribunal against the Information Commissioners Office decision.
21.02.06 The appeal was heard by the Tribunal.
22.02.06
14.04.06 Tribunal decision prepared
28.03.06 Tribunal publishes decision and a revised Decision Notice.
2.05.06 The Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council
Summary (Copied from the published on the 28th March 2006)
Substitute Decision Notice
“41 The complaint of Mr Markinson was that the Council had not complied with Regulation 8(3) in that it had sought to charge:
(a) £6 for a copy of any planning/building control decision notices (a charge that was increased to £6.50 on 1 April 2005 and then reduced to 50p on 16 June 2005, both dates post-dating the date when Mr Markinson had lodged his complaint with the Commissioner); and
(b) 50p for each piece of all other A4 size copy documents.
42 The Commissioner s decision should stand on the following questions:
(a) The information in question fell to be considered under the Regulations; and
(b) The circumstances were such as to trigger the Commissioner s duty to consider the matter and reach a decision.
43 The Tribunal has decided that the Council did not comply with its obligations under Part 2 of the Regulations in that, although the information was available for inspection at the Council s office free of charge, (in accordance with paragraph 8(2)(b) of the Regulations), each of the charges made by the Council for the provision of copies of the information, as set out in paragraph 41(a) and (b) above, failed to satisfy the requirements of Regulation 8(3), for the reasons set out in paragraphs 33 and 34 above.
44 The actions that the Council is required to take, in the light of that decision, are as follows:
(a) The Council should reassess the charges that it makes for providing copies of environmental information for the purposes of the Regulations.
(b) In making that reassessment the Council should adopt as a guide price the sum of 10p per A4 sheet, as identified in the Good practice guidance on access to and charging for planning information published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and as recommended by the DCA.
(c) The Council should be free to exceed that guide price figure only if it can demonstrate that there is a good reason for it to do so, and in considering whether any such reason exists the Council should:
(i) take due regard of the guidance set out in the Code of Practice on the discharge of the obligations of public authorities under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and the Guidance to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 , both published by DEFRA, to the effect that any charge should be at a level that does not exceed the cost of producing the copies;
(ii) disregard any costs, including staff costs, associated with the maintenance of the information in question or its identification or extraction from storage; and
(iii) disregard any factors beyond the number and size of sheets to be copied, in particular, the real or perceived significance of the content, or the effect that any charging structure may have on the Council s revenue or its staff workload.
(d) If the Council wishes to, and can, justify a higher charging rate, on the basis of the guidance set out above, then it may do so provided that there has been proper study, scrutiny, decision and authorisation for such a charge, and the process for arriving at the higher charge is published and available for scrutiny.
45 We direct that a copy of this decision, incorporating this substituted Decision Notice, be served on the Council and that it complete the process of re-assessment, and publishes details of the resulting charges, by no later than 2 May 2006”.
Case Notes
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
The DEFRA summary of the case states:
“What is the Significance of this Decision to Other Public Authorities?
1) Any charges that a public authority makes for providing Environmental Information must be reasonable to the general public as well as to the authority themselves.
2) Public Authorities should review their policies on photocopying charges for environmental information, particularly planning information, and be aware that they will require strong justification to charge more than 10p per copy.”
--
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Environmental Information Regulations
Defra published on the 28th July 2010 updated guidance on Charging for environmental information under the EIRs
CHARGING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 (14 pages, Dated: 28 July 2010)
Page 4 of the updated guidance references the Markinson case.
--
Information Commissioners Office Guidance document: Environmental Information Regulations
Charging for environmental information
Related European-PSI-Platform news items
Local Land Charges SI 2010 No. 1812
UK PSI Charges dropped to comply with EU Directive!
Case last updated: 1 August 2010
- 351 reads
