You are on page 1of 12



Appeal No. EA/2013/0285
Xxxx Yyyyy
1. This Response is served pursuant to rule 23 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier
Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.

2. The Respondent (the Commissioner) respectfully submits that the Appellants
Notice of Appeal dated 30 December 2013 should be dismissed for the reasons given
in the Commissioners Decision Notice dated 16 December 2013 (reference
FS50505226) and further elaborated in this Response.

3. The Commissioner agrees with the Appellant that this appeal is suitable for
determination on the papers.

4. This appeal relates to a FOIA request made by the appellant to North East
Lincolnshire Council (NELC) on 2 May 2013 in relation to the costs of issuing a
summons in respect of council tax.

5. The Appellants request was in the following terms:
With reference to regulation 34(5) of SI 1992/613

In circumstances where payment is made in accordance with (5)(a) and (b) on
the day of issue,

What cost the council have incurred in respect of the issue of that summons.
in actual pounds and pence
as percentage of overall costs incurred in respect of an application where the
liability order is obtained
Note: The authority will have accepted payment and the application halted,
therefore no costs can be included in respect of agreeing or setting-up
payment arrangements, monitoring payment arrangements, telephone
communications or correspondence entered into outside those already
6. On 14 May 2013, NELC responded to the Appellant, stating that it did not hold the
requested information. At the same time NELC informed the Appellant that the costs
applied for the issue of a Council tax summons is 70.00.

7. On 15 May 2013, the Appellant requested an internal review of NELC's handling of
his FOIA request, referring to a business need and a legal obligation for the council
to hold a breakdown of costs as the person having to pay them should be afforded a
right to know how they were determined.

8. On 13 June 2013, NELC informed the Appellant of the outcome of the internal review
which had been requested. NELC confirmed that it did not hold the requested

9. Following certain further exchanges between the Appellant and NELC in relation to
the Appellant's FOIA request, the Appellant submitted a complaint to the
Commissioner on 26 June 2013. The Commissioner subsequently communicated with
both the Appellant and NELC prior to issuing the DN. In particular, on 18 October
2013, the Commissioner asked a number of questions of NELC in relation to its
handling of the Appellant's FOIA request. On 12 November 2013, NELC answered
each of those questions.

10. On 16 December 2013, the Commissioner issued a Decision Notice (the DN) in
relation to the Appellants complaint. In the DN, the Commissioner found that on the
balance of probabilities, the requested information was not held by NELC (as had
been NELC's position throughout) and that, accordingly, there had been no breach of
section 1 of FOIA in NELC's treatment of the Appellants request.

11. For the avoidance of doubt, this Response adopts the findings in the DN in their
entirety. The detailed findings in the DN are reiterated below to the extent necessary
to respond to the Appellants grounds of appeal.
12. The defendant appealed against the DN in a Notice of Appeal (the "NoA") dated 30
December 2013. The Defendant understands the grounds of appeal to be (in
summary) as follows:

(1) The Appellant contends that there is a business/legal requirement for NELC to
hold the requested information (NoA, paras. 6(i) and 7 21);

(2) Irrespective of any such requirement, the Appellant contends that NELC does,
in fact, hold certain expenditure data as well as data relating to the number of
summons which are actually issued. It appears to be the Appellant's case that,
on this basis, NELC did hold of relevant data necessary to facilitate disclosure
of the requested information (NoA, paras. 6(ii) and 22 26);

(3) The Commissioner is also alleged to have failed to take into account certain
amended government guidance in his consideration of the Appellant's
complaint (NoA, paras. 6(iii) and 27 32); and

(4) Finally, the Appellant takes issue with NELCs claim that it was unaware of
certain government guidance at the time of responding to the Appellants
request (NoA, paras. 6(iv) and 33).


13. So far as is material, section 1 FOIA provides (emphasis added):

"1(1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is

(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds
information of the description specified in the request, and
(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.

(4) The information

(a) in respect of which the applicant is to be informed under
subsection (1)(a), or
(b) which is to be communicated under subsection (1)(b),

is the information in question held at the time when the request is
received, except that account may be taken of any amendment or
deletion made between that time and the time when the information is
to be communicated under subsection (1)(b), being an amendment or
deletion that would have been made regardless of the receipt of the

14. Accordingly, public authorities are obliged under section 1(1)(a) FOIA to confirm or
deny whether they hold information that is the subject of a request. If they do not hold
the information in question, then no duty to communicate that information to the party
requesting it arises under section 1(1)(b) FOIA.

15. Where a requesting party complains to the Commissioner on the basis that a public
authority has wrongly denied that it holds requested information, the Commissioner's
task is to determine whether the public authority does, in fact, hold that information.

16. Then nature of that task and the standard of proof to be applied by the Commissioner
are set out by the Tribunal in the well-known decision in Bromley & Others v IC &
the Environment Agency (EA/2006/0072) [2011] 1 Info LR 1273, at [13]:
There can seldom be absolute certainty that information relevant to a request
does not remain undiscovered somewhere within a public authority's records.
This is particularly the case with a large national organisation like the
Environment Agency, whose records are inevitably spread across a number of
departments in different locations. The Environment Agency properly
conceded that it could not be certain that it holds no more information.
However, it argued (and was supported in the argument by the Information
Commissioner) that the test to be applied was not certainty but the balance of
probabilities. This is the normal standard of proof and clearly applies to
Appeals before this Tribunal in which the Information Commissioner's
findings of fact are reviewed. We think that its application requires us to
consider a number of factors including the quality of the public authority's
initial analysis of the request, the scope of the search that it decided to make
on the basis of that analysis and the rigour and efficiency with which the
search was then conducted. Other matters may affect our assessment at each
stage, including, for example, the discovery of materials elsewhere whose
existence or content point to the existence of further information within the
public authority which had not been brought to light. Our task is to decide, on
the basis of our review of all of these factors, whether the public authority is
likely to be holding relevant information beyond that which has already been
disclosed. (emphasis added)

17. Bromley has been followed in a number of other cases (see e.g. paragraph 35 of Reed
v Information Commissioner and FCO (EA/2008/0095)).

18. Accordingly, the Commissioner's task in relation to the Appellants underlining
complaint was to determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether NELC held the
requested information.

19. Importantly, this is not a case in which the Appellant complained about the scope,
rigour or efficiency of NELC's search for the requested information. Indeed, NELC
did not carry out any search at all, because it apprehended (without the need for any
search) that it simply did not hold the requested information. Accordingly, the only
matter with which the Tribunal need concern itself is with the Commissioner's
determination that NELC did not, on the balance of probabilities, hold the requested

20. In short, the Commissioner remains satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the
requested information by the Appellant was not held by NELC. As recorded in the
DN, the Commissioner carefully scrutinised NELC's claim that it did not hold the
requested information, including by reference to whether there was any legal
requirement or business need for NELC to hold it. The NoA provides no basis at all
for the Tribunal to question the Commissioner's conclusion on this point.

21. The Commissioner responds below to the individual grounds of appeal raised by the

The first ground of appeal

22. The first ground of appeal is characterised (NoA, para. 6(i)) by reference to an alleged
business/legal requirement for NELC to hold the requested information.

23. It is apparent (from NoA, paras. 7 21) that the essence of the first ground of appeal
is an alleged legal obligation on NELC to hold the requested information which is
said to arise from the provisions of the Council Tax (Administration and
Enforcement) Regulations 1992, as elaborated by certain guidance from the
Department of Communities and Local Government ("DCLG").

24. This ground of appeal is misconceived.

25. Crucially, this ground of appeal is wholly directed at establishing that NELC had a
legal requirement to hold the requested information. However, the existence or
otherwise of such a requirement is not determinative of the issue which the
Commissioner had to decide in the DN, namely whether NELC did, on the balance of
probabilities, in fact hold the requested information. The mere existence of some form
of obligation to hold specific information does not mean that that information is
actually held. The first ground of appeal appears to elide these two logically separate
26. It is true that existence of a business need or legal requirement to hold particular
information may be evidentially relevant to the Commissioner's determination of
whether, on the balance of probabilities, that information was held. Thus, if there are
statutory duties or practical reasons to hold the information the Commissioner will
need more evidence to convince him that it is not held.
In that regard, when
investigating the complaint, the Commissioner quite properly enquired whether there
was any legal requirement or business need on the part of NELC to hold the requested
information (see DN, para. 15). On the basis of NELC's explanations, the
Commissioner was nonetheless satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the
requested information was not held by NELC (DN, para. 20).

27. In that regard, the Commissioner had regard to NELCs explanations that:

(1) The DCLG guidance referred to by the Appellant (NoA, para. 18), which states
that local authorities should be able to provide a breakdown of the costs of
court summons on request, was only published on 17 June 2013 (i.e. after the
initial response to the Appellants request and after the internal review
procedure) and, in any event, that documentation is merely guidance and does
not entail a legal obligation to hold the information requested (DN, para. 16);

(2) The legislative provisions referred to by the Appellant, specifically regulation
34(5) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
(the Regulations), provide that public authorities shall not proceed with
summonses for unpaid council tax if there is paid/tendered to the authority
both the outstanding sum and a sum equal to the costs reasonably incurred by
the authority in connection with the application up to the time of the payment or
tender [of the outstanding council tax payment]. However, neither this
provision, nor any other statutory provisions, provides any obligation on local
councils to hold information enabling them to provide a breakdown of those
reasonable costs (DN, paras. 17, 19).

28. Importantly, the Commissioner accepted NELC's explanation that the actual costs
incurred in connection with council tax summons would vary in each individual case,
but that NELC does not have the necessary resources to calculate costs on a case by
case basis, but rather sets a prescribed cost which is applied to all cases (DN, para.
18). The appellant does not even attempt, in the NoA, to call this explanation into

See the ICO publication Determining whether information is held (Ref: 201330515, Version 2.0), para.59.

29. The Appellant does refer, extensively, to an apparent discrepancy arising from the fact
that NELC applies a charge of 70 in respect of the costs of pursuing unpaid council
tax by way of a summons, with the same charge being applied irrespective of whether
the liability is settled prior to or after instigation of court proceedings (NoA, paras.
17, 20 21). The problem, on the Appellant's view, is that it does not make sense for
NELC to apply the same costs to the former situation, in circumstances where the
latter situation involves the additional costs of prosecuting the summons in court.
However, even assuming there is some discrepancy, the Appellant does not explain
why any such discrepancy must mean that NELC held the requested information.
Rather, at most, this is a complaint that NELC has failed to limit the sum charged in
respect of the cost of pursuing unpaid council tax by way of a summons to the costs
reasonably incurred in doing so. That is patently not an issue which is relevant
under FOIA, and not an issue which the Tribunal is competent to determine in the
present appeal.

30. The Tribunal is also invited to consider the fact that the Appellant has previously
made a similar information request of NELC which was the subject of a decision of
the Commissioner of 13 February 2012 (reference FS50400874), in which the
Commissioner similarly accepted NELC's explanation as to why it did not hold the
requested information. In striking out the Appellant's appeal against this earlier
decision, the Tribunal considered that:

the Tribunals powers are limited to determining, in relation to this appeal,
whether the requested information is held and whether it should be provided.
It has no standing to determine what the council 'should' hold and how it
should act. (That is unless that is evidence to support an argument that on the
balance of probabilities the Council did in fact hold the information which
the Appellant has not argued, and it is difficult to see how he could argue in
this case).

31. In the Commissioners respectful observation, the precise problem identified here by
the Tribunal in relation to the Appellants earlier appeal is fatal to his first ground of
appeal in the present case. Again, the Appellant has merely referred to statutory

See paragraph 15 of the Appendix to the Order of Judge Taylor dated 27 April 2012 striking out the
Appellants appeal in case EA/2012/0050.
provisions and government guidance which he considers oblige NELC to hold the
relevant information, but has offered no argument to demonstrate that it did, in fact,
hold it. Accordingly, the Commissioner does not consider that the first ground of
appeal provides any reason to depart from his conclusions in the DN.

The second ground of appeal

32. Unlike the first ground of appeal, the second ground of appeal does specifically
contend that NELC held certain information, namely expenditure data relating to
magistrates court fees and data on the total number of council tax summonses issued.
The Appellant appears to contend that this data would be sufficient for NELC to
calculate the costs referred to in his request and then communicate them to the
Appellant, the implication presumably being (although it is not expressly stated) that
NELCs failure to do so was a breach of its obligations under section 1 FOIA.

33. This ground of appeal is, again, misconceived.

34. First, and fundamentally, the information referred to in this ground of appeal is not
what the Appellant actually requested. As set out at paragraph 5 above, the Appellant
requested the costs incurred in the issue of a summons in circumstances where the
relevant outstanding council tax payment is made on the day of issue of the summons
question, and made no reference to the specific data referred to in the second ground
of appeal. If the Appellant wished to see the data referred to in the second ground of
appeal, he was perfectly entitled to ask for it, and that request would then have had to
be considered by NELC under FOIA in the ordinary manner. He did not do so.

35. Second, this ground of appeal ignores NELCs description (recorded at para.17 of the
DN) of the nature of the costs incurred in seeking recovery of unpaid council tax by
issue of a summons. The cost items referred to go beyond the cost of the magistrates'
court fees which the Appellant appears to consider to be the only relevant expenditure
on NELC's part in relation to issuing summonses (NoA, para. 25). Moreover, again,
the second ground of appeal offers no reason to doubt NELC's explanation that it
does not have the resources to calculate the cost of pursuing unpaid council tax on a
case-by-case basis, but rather sets a standard charge in respect of costs in all such
cases. Again, if the Appellant is aggrieved by the level of the standard charge imposed
in this respect, an appeal under FOIA is simply the wrong forum in which to air that

The third ground of appeal

36. The third ground of appeal appears to derive from a perceived failure, on the
Commissioners part, to take into account the complete version of paragraph 3.4 of
the updated DCLG guidance referred to at paragraph 11 of the DN. On the
Appellant's case, his original complaint to the Commissioner on 26 June 2013 quoted
a version of paragraph 3.4 of the DCLG guidance which was subsequently further
updated on or around 29 July 2013, thus omitting to refer to the text of the updated
version which states that courts may wish to be satisfied that amounts claimed by way
of costs in individual council tax summons cases are no more than the costs
reasonably incurred by the authority in question. The Appellant notes that he sent the
updated version of paragraph 3.4 of the Guidance to the Commissioner under cover of
an email of 18 October 2013 (NoA, para. 31).

37. This ground of appeal cannot succeed because:

(1) The allegations that the Commissioner failed to consider the full version of
paragraph 3.4 in the DN is unsupported by the taxt of the DN. Paragraph 11 of
the DN merely quotes from the Appellant's original complaint which, on the
Appellant's own case (see NoA, para. 26) did not refer to the full version of
paragraph 3.4 of the DCLG guidance. Accordingly, the fact that the
Commissioner does not quote the full version of paragraph 3.4 of the DCLG
guidance in paragraph 11 of the DN does not demonstrate that the
Commissioner did not consider it.

(2) In any event, the Commissioner plainly considered the effect of the
Regulations to which paragraph 3.4 of the DCLG guidance relates, including
the obligation for costs imposed in respect of council tax summonses to be
limited to costs reasonably incurred (see DN, para. 17), and did not
consider that this was probative of the fact that NELC held the information
requested. It is difficult to see why a failure to refer to the full text of
paragraph 3.4 of the DCLG guidance (which merely states a possible
consequence of the provisions of the Regulation) could possibly have made
any difference to the conclusion. The Commissioner also considered, and was
satisfied with, NELCs explanation that the relevant DCLG guidance was
merely guidance and did not entail any legal obligation to hold the
information requested (DN, para. 16). Again, the updated text of paragraph 3.4
does not provide any reason to suggest that it is anything other than

(3) Further, and as in relation to the first two grounds of appeal, the very most that
this ground of appeal could establish is that NELC was obliged to hold the
information in question. Even if it was so obliged, this does not determine the
relevant issue under FOIA, viz. the factual question of whether the
information was in fac held. In that regard, again, the Appellant offers no
argument as to why the Tribunal should depart from the Commissioner's
conclusions on that point, in particular in light of the explanation at paragraph
18 of the DN that NELC simply did not have the resources to calculate the
costs incurred on a case-by-case basis

38. In the circumstances, the third ground of appeal provides no good basis for the
Tribunal to overturn the Commissioner's decision.

The fourth ground of appeal

39. The fourth and final ground of appeal is directed at NELC's statement, recorded at
paragraph 16 of the DN, that at the time of its response to the Appellant's request and
the subsequent internal review response, the DCLG guidance had not been published.
The Appellant's case is that NELC should have been aware of an obligation to be able
to support costs in any individual cost as long ago as 9 March 2012, apparently a date
on which an earlier iteration of the publication was emailed to NELC, containing the
reference to the fact that the court may wish to be satisfied that costs in individual
cases are reasonably incurred (DN, para. 33).

40. The Commissioner notes that it is not clear whether the fourth ground of appeal
alleges any error on the part of the Commissioner himself in the DN. If the allegation
is that NELC wrongly informed the Commissioner that it was unaware the DCLG
guidance at the time of the request/internal review procedure, then it is not clear why
this would constitute an error on the part of the Commissioner, in circumstances
where the Commissioner did refer to the DCLG guidance and nonetheless came to the
conclusion that, on the balance of probabilities, the information requested was not
held at the relevant time. The precise time at which NELC became aware of the
guidance is wholly irrelevant to the Commissioner's determination of that question,
since the Commissioner was aware of the guidance at the time of the DN, as well as
NELC's views on the effect of the guidance, and nonetheless concluded that the
requested information was not held.

41. Accordingly, to the extent that the fourth ground of appeal purports to identify an
error in the DN, it is misconceived, and the Tribunal is respectfully invited to reject it.


42. For the reasons given in this response and in the DN, the Commissioner respectfully
submits that the appeal should be dismissed in its entirety. The appellant has failed to
show any error in the Commissioners determination, on the balance of probabilities,
that the requested information was not held by the NELC.

Dated this 4 February 2014

Adam Sowerbutts
For and on behalf of the Information Commissioner

Name and address of Respondent / Address for service:-
Adam Sowerbutts
Information Commissioners Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane