At a time when estates and facilities managers are taking increasing responsibility for sensitive information (see article page 51), 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.
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 fatherin- 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. 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 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.
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, it had “committed several breaches” by not disclosing information within 20 working days, and not providing a refusal notice citing the exemptions it later relied on to withhold information.
It has been ordered to supply further documents to the complainant, and the names of senior staff it earlier removed.
