At a time when estates and facilities managers are taking increasing responsibility for sensitive information, the Information Commissioner has strongly criticised Hounslow Primary Care Trust for non-compliance with the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act by “failing to respond adequately” to an individual’s request for information about his late father-in-law’s care in a nursing home.
The complainant submitted an information request on January 1, 2005 seeking all correspondence between the Trust and 30 separate organisations or individuals. The Trust provided some data, but the complainant suggested that it “held substantially more”. The Information Commissioner then intervened, but the PCT still refused to answer the complainant’s request based on section 12 of the FOI Act, which applies where compliance costs are said to exceed “the appropriate limit”. Instead it invited a “refined information request”.
In this the complainant requested all correspondence between the Trust and Vicarage Farm Nursing Home, a doctor, the Metropolitan Police and the West London Coroner concerning his late father-in-law’s care and a police enquiry following his death. He subsequently contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) when Hounslow PCT failed to respond. Subsequently, the complainant and Commissioner say they “contacted the Trust “numerous times”. When it did not respond, it received a Decision Notice insisting it do so within 35 days. The Trust then provided some of the information requested, insisting it had not withheld any. However the complainant argued it had still failed to provide all the data sought.
The ICO’s recent Decision Notice argued that it needed to see all the requested material to make a “proper judgment” about its disclosure. However, the Trust had “failed on numerous occasions” to provide it. An Information Notice was served, but ignored, after which Commissioner Richard Thomas served draft High Court papers certifying contempt of court. The PCT did then provide the information to the ICO. The Commissioner says he is “particularly concerned” that, despite PCT assurances it did not hold some of the material requested, it subsequently “located relevant documents”, leading him to recommend it urgently reviews its records management system.
An ICO statement conceded the PCT “ultimately provided some information” to the requester, and was justified in deleting names of junior staff, and withholding some information. However, the Commissioner said it had “committed several breaches” by falling to disclose information within 20 working days, and not providing a refusal notice citing the exemptions it later relied on to withhold and/or delete information.
It has now been ordered it to supply further documents to the complainant, and the names of senior staff it earlier removed.
