Information Tribunal rules addresses are exempt under section 40 of the FOIA | Practical Law

Information Tribunal rules addresses are exempt under section 40 of the FOIA | Practical Law

The Information Tribunal has ruled that the addresses of vacant residential properties owned by individuals, which had been requested from a council under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), were exempt from disclosure under, among other things, section 40 of the FOIA. Section 40 exempts personal data where its disclosure would breach the principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). On the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that once the addresses of the empty properties had been identified, it was likely that the identity of the owners could be traced. It said that the fact that an individual owned a substantial asset said something about their private life and was biographically significant, so as to constitute personal data. The disclosure of the addresses would not be permitted under the DPA because, among other things, the prejudice to the rights and legitimate interests of the owners, due to the risk of crime against empty properties and loss of property value, outweighed the applicant's legitimate interest in disclosure. Case: Mr C P England and London Borough of Bexley v Information Commissioner, 10 May 2007.

Information Tribunal rules addresses are exempt under section 40 of the FOIA

Practical Law UK Legal Update 6-360-4952 (Approx. 2 pages)

Information Tribunal rules addresses are exempt under section 40 of the FOIA

by PLC IPIT & Communications
Law stated as at 10 May 2007United Kingdom
The Information Tribunal has ruled that the addresses of vacant residential properties owned by individuals, which had been requested from a council under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), were exempt from disclosure under, among other things, section 40 of the FOIA. Section 40 exempts personal data where its disclosure would breach the principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). On the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that once the addresses of the empty properties had been identified, it was likely that the identity of the owners could be traced. It said that the fact that an individual owned a substantial asset said something about their private life and was biographically significant, so as to constitute personal data. The disclosure of the addresses would not be permitted under the DPA because, among other things, the prejudice to the rights and legitimate interests of the owners, due to the risk of crime against empty properties and loss of property value, outweighed the applicant's legitimate interest in disclosure. Case: Mr C P England and London Borough of Bexley v Information Commissioner, 10 May 2007.