City council must reveal names of councillors summonsed to court over council tax arrears, information watchdog finds

Liverpool City Council must reveal the identities of two councillors who have received a court summons over council tax arrears, a decision notice from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has concluded.

The information watchdog found that the personal circumstances that the council relied on in an attempt to keep their identities private did not meet the "exceptional" threshold required.   

In October 2023, Liam Thorp, Political Editor of the Liverpool Echo, made an FOI request to the council asking for the names of any sitting elected councillor in Liverpool who has received a court summons regarding the non-payment of council tax between 2020 and 2024.

The council then responded to confirm that two sitting councillors had received a court summons for council tax arrears, but that their identities were exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the 2000 Act.

Section 40(2) provides an exemption for information that is the personal data of an individual other than the requester and where the disclosure of that personal data would be in breach of any of the data protection principles.

The decision was subject to an internal review, and the council upheld its original position. Thorp then appealed to the ICO.

In its decision notice, issued on Monday (8 April), the Commissioner concluded that: "The Council is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to provide the withheld information."

It added: "The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information."

The council must comply with the decision notice within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.

Detailing its reasoning, the Commissioner accepted the withheld information to constitute "personal data" as it related to an identified or identifiable living individual.

But the watchdog found that there was a "a legitimate interest in the public knowing when councillors have failed to pay council tax and who those councillors are".

In making the decision, the Commissioner referenced the Upper Tribunal's (UT) decision in DH v Information Commissioner and Bolton Council, which found that the name of a councillor who had failed to pay council tax should be disclosed.

"The view of the UT was that there is a legitimate interest in the public being aware of this information as councillors are responsible for the expenditure of public money and the administration of council tax; if a councillor is in arrears of more than two months, they cannot vote on matters that concern council tax," the Commissioner noted.

The UT decision acknowledged that there may be exceptional cases in which the personal circumstances of a councillor "are so compelling" that they should be protected from exposure.

Liverpool provided a summary of the personal circumstances of the councillors to the Commissioner, but the watchdog said these failed to "provide any compelling arguments, beyond the general loss of privacy, why disclosure of the information would have an excessive or disproportionate adverse effect on the councillors' rights and freedoms".

The Commissioner said they were not persuaded that the circumstances met the threshold of exceptional.

The notice added: "With regard to the rights and freedoms of the individuals, the UT case cited above determined that Councillors should expect to be scrutinised and be accountable for their actions in so far as they are relevant to their public office."

The notice said that there should be an even greater expectation of scrutiny in cases involving a court summons due to the extent of arrears.

The notice concluded: "Having considered the UT's comments, and the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner is of the view that the legitimate interest in disclosure of the withheld information outweighs the rights and freedoms of the individuals in this instance.

"Therefore, the Commissioner's decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to refuse to provide the withheld information."

A spokesperson for Liverpool City Council said: "The Council recognises the important principles which apply in this case, and welcomes the ICO's involvement. We will now carefully consider the ICO's decision."

Adam Carey