Ref 2. Northwood Cemetery Correspondence (Feb 08)
Text of letter from Information Commissioners Office to LBH

(Underling added by HW)

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
SK9 5AF
 

Mr R Ingle
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officer
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
Uxbridge
Middlesex
UB8 1UW


30 July 2008

Case Reference Number FS50204770


Dear Mr Ingle,

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Complaint from Mr Peter Silverman

Further to our telephone conversation yesterday, I am writing to provide my assessment of the complaint received by the Information Commissioner’s Office (“the ICO”) by Mr Silverman (“the complainant”). A copy of this assessment has also been provided to the complainant for his information.

Request summary

The complaint concerns a request made to the Council on 1 February 2008. Point 1 of the request was for the following information:

“A copy of any correspondence (e-mails, letters etc) between the Council and Enterprise which makes reference to the grounds maintenance work carried out by Enterprise at Northwood Cemetery (not burials) from April 2007. Where contact has been verbal, please let me have copies of any notes, meeting minutes etc recording what was said”.

The Council responded on 15 February 2008 and supplied a copy of monthly inspections carried out in the Ruslip Northwood area and copies of cemetery section inspection sheets. It also supplied copies of contract review meetings held with Enterprise since April 2007.

On 2 May 2008, the complainant emailed expressing dissatisfaction with the response. The main point of his email was to complain that the Council had not stated whether it held the information requested in point 1 (see above).

The Council completed an internal review on 22 May 2008 and stated that it was “satisfied that all correspondence and verbal communication between the council and Enterprise which makes reference to the grounds maintenance work at Northwood Cemetery that we hold in a recorded format has been forwarded to you”.

Complaint to ICO

The complainant complained to the ICO that the Council failed to confirm or deny whether it held the information he requested in point 1 of his request in accordance with the obligation under section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”) when it provided its initial response.

ICO assessment

We discussed during our telephone conversation that the Council has an obligation under section 1(1) of the FOIA to state in writing whether it holds information that has been requested (this obligation is often referred to as the duty to confirm or deny). Section 1(1)(a)  states:

“Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled –

(a)to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request…”

The Council did not state in its initial response whether it held information of the description specified in the request. The Council has now confirmed to the Commissioner that it does not hold the correspondence requested by the complainant. It will therefore not be necessary to take any further action as we trust that the Council will in future state whether it holds information in accordance with section 1(1). The complaint has now been closed.

Thank you for your assistance.


Yours sincerely,




Elizabeth Woodworth
Complaints Officer
`