Disclosure Log

Banking and insurance (FOI/4664)

Message from Nottinghamshire County Council - 06 September 2024

Dear *****

Freedom of Information Request – Ref: FOI/00004664

Thank you for your email of 15 August 2024 where you requested information about our banking and insurance arrangements.

The information, which can be disclosed, is:
 
  1. The names of all banking providers that this institution has used in the past two financial years (1st April 2022 – 1st April 2024).
 
  • Bank of Scotland
  • Barclays Bank
  • Coventry Building Society
  • Goldman Sachs
  • LBBW
  • Lloyds Bank
  • Nationwide
  • Santander
 
  1. The services that were used from the above banking providers in the past two financial years (1st April 2022 – 1st April 2024).
 
  • Current account banking services
  • Depositing of surplus cash for up to 3 months
 
  1. The name of the insurance company or companies that currently provide your institution with the following types of insurance coverage:
 
  • American International Group UK Limited via Risk Management Partners
  • Chubb
  • HSB Engineering Insurance Limited via Risk Management Partners
  • Lloyds Underwriter Syndicate via Arthur J Gallagher (UK) Limited
  • Maven Public Sector
  • Tokio Marine Kiln Syndicates Limited via Arthur J Gallagher (UK) Limited
  • Zurich Municipal
 
  1. The start and end dates of the current insurance contract(s) for each type of insurance coverage listed above

01/05/2022 to 30/04/2025 – opportunity to extend for two further 12 month periods after initial 3 year contract applies to all insurances except for the following:
 
  • Lloyds Underwriter Syndicate via Arthur J Gallagher (UK) Limited – 01/05/2024 to 30/04/2025
  • Tokio Marine Kiln Syndicates Limited via Arthur J Gallagher (UK) Limited – 01/05/2024 to 30/04/2025


The remainder of the information that you requested is exempt under section 31 (law enforcement) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and is therefore withheld.  This comprises the answers to the types of insurance we have coverage for in question 3 and the types of any other type of insurance in question 4.

3. The name of the insurance company or companies that currently provide your institution with the following types of insurance coverage:

Employers’ liability insurance
Public liability insurance
Professional indemnity insurance
Officials Indemnity
Business Interruption
Property Owners
Personal Accident
Casualty
Motor/Vehicle
Fine Art
Property
Event
Travel
Crime
Terrorism
Excess Liability

4.  Any other type of insurance not listed above - please provide the name of the company together with the type of the insurance cover

S31(1) provides, “Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 31 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice – (a) the prevention or detection of crime”.
 
In consideration of whether the information you have requested can be released, I have applied the prejudice test as set out within s31(1) as well as that adopted in Christopher Martin Hogan and Oxford City Council v the Information Commissioner (EA/2005/0026 and 0030, 17 October 2006).
 
Applicable interests
 
There is a prejudice which could affect the council’s interests in the prevention or detection of crime.  This is therefore an applicable interest identified and therefore relevant to this exemption which it is designed to protect.
 
Nature of the prejudice
 
Turning to the nature of the prejudice, by disclosing the details of the types of insurance risks covered or not covered the council considers that there is a real risk that this could have a detrimental effect on the prevention or detection of crime.  If disclosed, the information could be used by criminals to target areas of our organisation where they feel there is no insurance cover in place and perhaps a weakness of protection.
 
Likelihood of prejudice
 
Taking into account the above, I will now consider the likelihood of prejudice.  S31(1) states that information can be exempt where disclosure, “would, or would be likely to” cause prejudice.  In considering where prejudice, “would” occur, I conclude that the above circumstances is more probable than not and that there is a real and significant risk of prejudice in releasing the information requested.
 
In considering where prejudice, “would be likely” to occur, I conclude that there is a real and significant risk of the prejudice occurring even though the probability of such may fall short of being more probable than not (as per judgment of Mr Justice Munby in R (on the application of Lord) v Secretary of State for the Home Office[2003] EWHC 2073).
 
A lack of insurance cover in a particular area of our organisation could identify a weakness that criminals seek to take advantage of.  The council has a duty to consider the safety of our residents and employees as well as the use of public funds.  It is a realistic possibility that the information requested would or would likely lead to prejudice to the council as outlined in s31(1).
 
Public Interest Test
 
Having considered the prejudice test, I now turn to the public interest test which I am obliged to consider in relying on the qualified exemption at s31(1) to determine whether or not the information should nevertheless be disclosed.
 
In considering the public interest test, the council pays attention to the need to demonstrate openness, transparency and accountability to show citizens how public funds are spent and how activities are carried out by the council on their behalf.  This would allow better scrutiny by taxpayers.  Furthermore, openness with future competitors may lead to more competition and therefore better value for money for citizens.
 
However, in favour of maintaining the exemption, a council must be allowed to act to prevent or detect criminal activities as well as protect residents from being exposed to such.  There is a clear public interest in protecting society from the impact of crime.  It is also appropriate to take account of the cost of recovering from the impact of criminal activities on any uninsured areas of our organisation.  Furthermore, the council must consider the effect on public resources and funds should this information be released into the public domain.
 
In considering your request, I have taken into account the legislation and the ICO guidance on that legislation.
 
Having considered the public interest, the Council’s decision is therefore to withhold the information.

Your privacy: we use your personal information such as name and address so that we can comply with our legal obligations to respond to FOI requests.  For further details about the use of information about you, please see the information handling privacy notice on our website at https://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/media/4323566/informationgovernanceandinformationrightsprivacynotice.pdf.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review.  Internal review requests should be submitted within 40 working days of the date of receipt of the response to your original request and should be addressed to: Complaints and Information – Team Manager, Nottinghamshire County Council, County Hall, Loughborough Road, West Bridgford, NOTTINGHAM, NG2 7QP or [email protected].

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications. 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision.  The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, WILMSLOW, SK9 5AF or https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/foi-and-eir-complaints/.

Yours sincerely

Colin Sawers
Information Case Officer | Customers, Complaints and Information
Chief Executive"s Department | Nottinghamshire County Council
County Hall | Loughborough Road | West Bridgford | NOTTINGHAM | NG2 7QP
Tel: (0115) 977 3714