Page 1

By email to: Steve Baker <> / Contact: / Ana Gradiska
Email: /
Date: / 16January 2014

Dear Mr Baker,

Internal review of Information request - reference S-2013-67

I have now completed a review of the information sent in response to your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’) dated 7 December 2013. Our response was emailed to you on 18 December 2013 along with the internal review of case S-2013-15. You requested a review of our response on 20 December 2013 to your first request. In a separate email, you requested a review ofyour second request.

Your original request asked:

1) Request #1

I refer you to the following Freedom of Information (FoI) request (link below) to which you assigned the reference #170856.

Within FoI request #170856 there is reference to an earlier FoI request, reference #S-2013-15, where similar information had previously been requested and provided.

There are documents that were provided pursuant to FoI request reference #S-2013-15 that were not provided pursuant to FoI request reference #170856. Please provide the missing correspondence/documents (listed below for ease of reference), together with an updated “Final Spreadsheet BPA correspondence” as provided with replies to FoI request reference #S-2013-15.

Missing documents/correspondence

E42

E45 + enclosure

N3

N4

N12

N20

N21 + enclosure

N54

N59

N71

2) Please provide copies of all correspondence between London Councils' officers and representatives, both internal and with any other party (including the BPA Ltd., Patas, Popla and other BPA Ltd. members) regarding exclusion of the above named missing documents/correspondence

Your request for a review said:

I am writing to request an internal review of London Councils's handling of my FOI request 'Missing correspondence/documents re Popla/BPA/Nick Lester (FoI request #170856)'.

(relating to Request 1)

I am of the opinion that London Councils has applied exemptions inappropriately. London Councils has a duty of care to be open and transparent and in this case I believe it has failed in that duty. Consequently, I wish to bring this to the attention of the ICO, but must give recourse to due process by requesting an internal review.

(relating to Request 2) I ask in particular that you undertake a thorough search, particularly, but not exclusively, of correspondence between the person who conducted the review of FoI request number S-2013-15 (Christiane Jenkins) and any other party, and also of correspondence between Mr Nick Lester and any other party.

The purpose of the internal review is to provide a fair and thorough review of decisions made pursuant to the FOIA.

In reviewing London Councils’ response to your request for information I have concentrated on investigating your two claims: firstly, the inappropriate application of exemptions and secondly, the disclosure of any correspondence relating to the excluded emails.

1. Your claim that exemptions were applied inappropriately to the information which was requested

The response to your request for information which was sent to you by London Councils on 18 December 2013 contained the following paragraphs:

With reference to the first part of your request, all of the documents to which you refer, except for one with reference N12, are not held by London Councils for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Section 1 of the FOIA imposes a general duty on public authorities to disclose information upon request. However, that general duty is only engaged where the authority in question 'holds' the information. Section 3(2) of the FOIA further clarifies this by providing that information will be held by a public authority if inter alia '(a) it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person...' Information regarding the delivery and operation of the Parking on Private Lands Appeals (POPLA) service is not held by London Councils for its own purpose but rather, as London Councils delivers the POPLA service on behalf of the British Parking Association (BPA), is held confidentially by London Councils on behalf of the BPA. Furthermore, the POPLA service is not a listed public body within the FOIA. Therefore information regarding the delivery and operation of POPLA is not available under the FOIA.

Document N12 to which you refer is held by London Councils for the purposes of the FOIA. The information in this document is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) (third party personal information) of the FOIA. Section 40(2) has been applied as disclosure of this personal data would breach the first data protection principle (fair and lawful processing). It would be unfair to the data subject to disclose this personal data to the public under the Freedom of Information Act as it may cause unnecessary and unjustified distress. The section 40(2) exemption is an absolute exemption and is not subject to the public interest test. We do not consider that it would be possible to redact the document in a way that would anonymise the personal data and enable the release of other information.

I consider this position to be correct. The public does not have a right of access to information from POPLA or the BPA under the FOIA or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). London Councils delivers and operates the POPLA service on behalf of the BPA. Information regarding delivery and operation of the service is held by London Councils on behalf of the BPA and is not available under the FOIA or the EIR. Therefore, any email correspondence between London Councils staff and the BPA regarding delivery and operation of the POPLA service is not subject to the FOIA.

I am satisfied that all emails which are subject to the FOIA were released to you in London Councils’ response of 18 December 2013. The emails that were sent to the previous requestor in error are held by London Councils on behalf of the BPA and are not available under the FOIA. I believe that thefact that the emails you refer to in your request had previously been released, in error, does not set a precedent for them to be released to any subsequent requestors.

2. Your request for all correspondence between London Councils’ officers and representatives, both internal and any other party, regarding exclusion of the above named missing documents/correspondence

I have reviewed the correspondence search that was undertaken by my colleague John Erde in response to your original request, which included emails sent or received by Christiane Jenkins and emails sent or received by Nick Lester. I am satisfied that the only correspondence that is held by London Councils relating to the exclusion of the specific documents was the internal review of case S-2013-15, which was forwarded to you by us on 18 December 2013, in response to your original requests.

If you remain dissatisfied with our response to your request for an internal review and you wish to make a further complaint, you have the right, under Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, to ask the Information Commissioner to decide whether your request has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act. His address is: The Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF or

Yours sincerely,

Ana Gradiska

Acting FOI and ComplaintsManager