Key Facts
- •Dr. Philip Wise requested information from the DVLA regarding their policy of requiring returned driving licenses.
- •The DVLA initially claimed the information was exempt under FOIA section 35(1), later stating they did not hold the information.
- •The Information Commissioner found the DVLA failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOIA but complied with section 16(1).
- •Dr. Wise appealed the Commissioner's decision.
Legal Principles
General right of access to information held by public authorities.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Duty to provide advice and assistance to persons making requests for information.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Standard of proof for determining whether a public authority holds information is the balance of probabilities.
Case law interpretation of FOIA
Exemption from disclosure under FOIA section 35(1) for information relating to the formulation or development of government policy.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found the DVLA did not hold the requested information and complied with section 16(1) of FOIA. The request was deemed overly specific and based on an assumption of the existence of a document.
DVLA's non-compliance with section 1(1) of FOIA acknowledged but not overturned.
The Tribunal accepted the Commissioner's finding that the DVLA initially failed to properly consider the request but ultimately did not hold the requested information.
DVLA's compliance with section 16(1) of FOIA confirmed.
The Tribunal found the DVLA made reasonable attempts to clarify the appellant's ambiguous request and therefore fulfilled its duty to provide advice and assistance.