Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice); ICO 23-Apr-2014

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to a decision made by a salary review panel. Northumberland County Council (the Council) agreed to disclose some but not all of the information. Following the Commissioner’s involvement, the Council decided to disclose the particular grading scores that were the subject of the complaint. The Commissioner’s decision is that, by failing to provide this information within the statutory period of 20 working days, the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 23-Apr-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKICO FS50519826,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

St Louises Comprehensive College (Decision Notice); ICO 23-Apr-2014

ICO The complainant had submitted a request to St Louise’s Comprehensive College (‘the College’

Court: ICO
Date: 23-Apr-2014
Statutes: e Freedom of Information Act 2000
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKICO FS50508886,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Harasoft Technologies Ltd -v- Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 24-Jul-2014

Section 98A (2) and (3) Taxes Management Act 1970 – Employer’s End of Year return P35 late – agent failed to file return – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal not allowed

Court: FTTTx
Date: 24-Jul-2014
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970 98A
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKFTT 717 (TC),

Comments Off

Filed under Taxes Management

Hampshire Ductwork Services Ltd -v- Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 22-Jul-2014

FTTTx VAT – default surcharge – penalty – whether properly imposed – whether reasonable excuse

Court: FTTTx
Date: 22-Jul-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKFTT 706 (TC),

Comments Off

Filed under VAT

Corbett -v- Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 25-Mar-2014

FTTTx CAPITAL GAINS TAX – entrepreneurs’ relief – Chapter 3 part V TCGA 1992 – whether a material disposal of business assets within s 169I – whether an officer or employee of the company at the relevant time – appeal allowed

Court: FTTTx
Date: 25-Mar-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKFTT 298 (TC),

Comments Off

Filed under Capital Gains Tax

National Archives (Decision Notice); ICO 30-Apr-2012

ICO The complainant made a freedom of information request to the National Archives for copies of a closed extract within a Foreign Office file. In response the National Archives disclosed most of the requested information by opening up the closed extract. However, three small passages were redacted under the exemptions in section 27(1) (International relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information was exempt under section 27(1)(a) and 27(1)(d) of FOIA and that the public interest in maintaining each exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 – Complaint Not upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 30-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50408585,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Northumbria Police (Decision Notice); ICO 30-Apr-2012

ICO The complainant has requested information concerning the cost to the public authority of a named solicitor firm. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to confirm whether it held the requested information within the statutory time limit. However, as it provided a response shortly after the time limit expired he does not require it to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 30-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50443960,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Merton London Borough Council (Decision Notice); ICO 26-Apr-2012

ICO The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Merton (‘the council’

Court: ICO
Date: 26-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50428141,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (Decision Notice); ICO 25-Apr-2012

ICO The complainant requested the agendas and minutes of meetings of the meetings of the strategic leadership team. The complainant has not received a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (‘the Council’) failed to respond to the request and therefore breached its obligations under section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide a substantive response to the complainant either disclosing the information or issuing a valid refusal compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 25-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50429082,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Metropolitan Police Service (Decision Notice); ICO 23-Apr-2012

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of the Theseus Report (the ‘Report’

Court: ICO
Date: 23-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50430180,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council (Decision Notice); ICO 19-Apr-2012

ICO The complainant submitted two requests to Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council (‘the Council’) both of which sought information about a particular development in the area. In response to these requests the Council provided the complainant with some information and relied on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse to provide any further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested constitutes environmental information and the correct access regime is the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to reconsider both requests under the EIR and either disclose the information requested or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 19-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50432906,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Newham London Borough Council (Decision Notice); ICO 18-Apr-2012

ICO The complainant requested details of any financial relationship or transactions between the London Borough of Newham (the ‘council’

Court: ICO
Date: 18-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50431421,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Royal Mail (Decision Notice); ICO 16-Apr-2012

ICO 1. The complainant requested information that concerned delivery entries in the Royal Mail Track & Trace System. The Royal Mail confirmed that it held the relevant information but refused to comply with the request on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate cost limit (section 12(1)).
2. The Commissioner has found that the Royal Mail was correct to apply
section 12(1).
3. The Commissioner requires no remedial
steps to be taken in this case.

Court: ICO
Date: 16-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50403767,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Sheffield City Council (Decision Notice); ICO 3-Apr-2012

ICO On 26 November 2011 the complainant requested the names of two leaseholder members of an advisory group and a record of their attendance at advisory group meetings. Although the council subsequently disclosed the information to the complainant it did so outside of the 20 working day period required by the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is therefore that Sheffield City Council breached section 10(1) of the Act. However the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 03-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50431394,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Ministry of Defence (Decision Notice); ICO 3-Apr-2012

ICO The complainant has requested the official prA

Court: ICO
Date: 03-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50418798,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Ministry of Justice (Decision Notice); ICO 2-Apr-2012

ICO The complainant has requested a file recording a 1961 trial for a breach of the Official Secrets Act. Some of this file was withheld under the exemption provided by section 23(1) (information relating to, or supplied by, security bodies). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ applied section 23(1) correctly and so it is not required to disclose any further parts of this file. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0099 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 02-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50419106,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Kent County Council (Decision Notice); ICO 19-Apr-2012

ICO The complainant has requested details of a proposal that was provided to conservative councillors relating to plans for local libraries in the county in the future. The council refused the request on the grounds that section 36 of the Act applied. It said that a disclosure of the information would prejudice the effective conduct or public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent County Council was correct to apply section 36 to the withheld information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 19-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50418874,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Michael Sobell Sinai School (Decision Notice); ICO 3-Apr-2012

ICO The complainant has requested information concerning security refunds for the 2011/12 academic year from Michael Sobell Sinai School (the ‘school’

Court: ICO
Date: 03-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50423537,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Portsmouth City Council (Decision Notice); ICO 2-Apr-2012

ICO The complainant has requested details of the sale of council properties by Portsmouth City Council Asset Management Service, outside the right to buy process, to either council staff or elected members for the years 2003 and 2004. The Commissioner’s decision is that Portsmouth City Council correctly relied on section 12 of the Act not to comply with the complainant’s request for information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 02-Apr-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKICO FS50420415,

Comments Off

Filed under Information

Grange Restaurants Ltd -v- Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 20-Aug-2014

FTTTX VAT – Notice of Requirement to provide security – protection of Revenue -connection with businesses which failed to honour VAT obligations – cash business with collection of VAT not paid – Whether Respondents actions in seeking security and the quantum thereof reasonable – yes – Appeal dismissed – VATA 1994 Sch 11 para 4

Court: FTTTx
Date: 20-Aug-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKFTT 832 (TC),

Comments Off

Filed under VAT