Law Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jan 2008

The complainant requested information relating to exchanges between the public authority and Parliamentary Counsel in connection with specific work undertaken by the public authority. The public authority refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 36 and 42. The Commissioner finds that section 42 was applied correctly. As this decision relates to all the withheld information, the Commissioner has not reached a conclusion as to whether section 36 was applied correctly. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with the Act in that it did not issue the refusal notice within 20 working days of receipt. This breach does not necessitate remedial action.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50100137
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.532487

Office of Communications (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Dec 2009

The complainant requested a copy of ‘the IPCC complaint referred to in [Ofcom’s] Broadcast Bulletin Issue 114 of 21 July 2008. The public authority initially refused the request under the exemption provided by section 44 of the Act, that disclosure of the information was prohibited under any other enactment. Ofcom cited the prohibition on disclosure provided by section 393(1) of the Communications Act 2003. At internal review, Ofcom advised the complainant that the information he requested was now refused under section 21 of the Act because it was available to him by another means. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested is available to the complainant as directed by Ofcom. However the requested information contains environmental information and Ofcom failed to consider the request under the Environmental Information Regulations. Some of the information was therefore not correctly refused by the public authority under section 21 of the Act and should have been refused under Regulation 6(1)(b). By its delayed responses, Ofcom breached Regulations 11(4) and 6(2)(a). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2010/0010 part allowed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50242937
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.532445

Bournemouth Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Jul 2012

The complainant requested emails and notes of meetings between the public authority and members of the North Bournemouth Allotment Society in 2011. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 40(2) FOIA to withhold third party personal data within the scope of the request. The public authority was not entitled to rely on the exemption at section 40(2) FOIA to withhold emails from the complainant within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a refusal notice (in accordance with section 17 FOIA) on the basis of section 40(1) FOIA for emails within the scope of the request which originated from the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50433873
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.529601

British Transport Police (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Feb 2011

On 12 March 2010 the complainant contacted the British Transport Police to request information relating to its current fleet of vehicles including the station/location at which each vehicle was based and the name and contact details of the fleet manager. The British Transport Police refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and finds that the application of section 14(1) was not justified. He therefore now requires the British Transport Police to either confirm or deny that the information is held and, if it is held, to either provide the complainant with the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice within 35 calendar days of this Notice. He has also decided that the British Transport Police failed to issue a valid refusal notice within the statutory time period as laid out in section 17(5) of the Act, or to notify the complainant of its review procedure or of his right to approach the Commissioner in accordance with its obligations under section 17(7)(a) and (b).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50307722
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.530187

Department of The Environment Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2009

The complainant requested from the Environment and Heritage Service, an agency within the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland), copies of all documentation in respect of the complainant’s landfill site. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information which was withheld from disclosure by the Department is environmental information which falls to be considered under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to refuse to provide the withheld information on the basis that the withheld information was exempt under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR as the information is comprised of internal communications and the public interest in maintaining the exception under regulation 12(4)(e) outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. In failing to provide the complainant with notice of its decision in response to the representations of the complainant under regulation 11(1) of the EIR, within the appropriate time period, that is no later than forty days after the date of receipt of those representations, the Department has failed to comply with regulation 11(4) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FER0154695
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.532412

Huntingdonshire District Council (Local Government): ICO 19 Aug 2021

The complainant has requested information relating to wind turbine noise complainants. Huntingdonshire District Council confirmed that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Huntingdonshire District Council correctly confirmed that it does not hold the requested information and that it complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0250 under appeal.
EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-56893
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.669422

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Nov 2009

The complainant requested information from the DVLA relating to Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. The DVLA sought to rely on section 12 of the Act in relation to some information requested and withheld other information relevant to the request by virtue of section 42 of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the DVLA was entitled to rely on section 12 and that it had correctly applied the section 42 exemption in relation to the withheld information relating to legal advice. The Commissioner finds that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. However the Commissioner finds that the DVLA breached section 16(1) as it failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance in relation to narrowing down the request. The Commissioner also finds that the DVLA breached section 17(5) of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with an adequate refusal notice. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0097 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50205855
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.532319

Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jun 2011

The complainant requested the annual rental rates for all business units on the Crynant Industrial Estate. The Council refused to provide the information citing section 43(2) of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated and finds that the Council correctly applied section 43(2) of the Act. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached sections 17(1) and 17(3)(b) of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2011/0142 withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50317737
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.530591

Dr M I King (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Aug 2011

The complainant made a request to Aldergate Medical Practice for the information it held about its treatment of his mother and his associated complaints. The Practice refused to provide some information and claimed it did not hold other information. The case was referred to the Commissioner. During the course of his investigation, the Practice explained that it was prepared to provide the complainant privately with a copy of most of the relevant recorded information held about his mother through the Commissioner in an effort to informally resolve this case. It also found some further information that it was prepared to disclose under the Act and did so. The complainant contends that further relevant recorded information was held and is missing. The Commissioner has determined that on the balance of probabilities no further relevant recorded information is held by the Practice. However, he has found breaches of section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b). He has also found procedural breaches of section 10(1), 17(1), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), and 17(7)(b), but he requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50410240
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.530732

Architect Registration Board (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Jun 2011

The complainant requested information about the Architects Registration Board’s investigation of a complaint against a named architect. ARB disclosed the information it held. The complainant did not accept the assurances of ARB that no further undisclosed information is held. Following investigation, the Commissioner, on a balance of probabilities, accepted ARB’s assurance that no undisclosed information is held and decided that ARB had complied with the Act. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0138 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50301030
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.530497

Homes for Islington (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jun 2011

The complainant requested information relating to expenses claims made by Homes for Islington (HFI) Board members. The complainant did not receive a substantive response within the statutory time frame and therefore contacted the public authority to request an internal review. The public authority completed the internal review acknowledging the delay in responding and confirmed information was held. The complainant contacted the Commissioner to complain about the handling of her request. Prior to the Commissioner commencing his investigation, HFI provided the information to the complainant. The complainant remained dissatisfied with the response. The Commissioner has investigated and requires no steps to be taken by the public authority.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50354908
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.530568

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Jun 2011

The complainant submitted a request to Oldham Council for information about the results of staff suspensions. The Council withheld this information under the exemptions at sections 40 and 41 of the Act. During the investigation, the Council disclosed some information to the complainant. The Commissioner finds that the Council has breached section 10(1) by failing to disclose this information within the statutory time for compliance. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council was correct to withhold the information under section 40(2). Consequently, he does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50374749
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.530599

Legal Services Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 13 Jun 2011

The complainant requested information concerning changes made that impacted upon which legal firms were able to carry out prison law work. The public authority disclosed some information, but withheld the remainder, citing the exemptions provided by the following sections of the Act: 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice and to the free and frank exchange of views), 40(2) (personal information), 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 43(2) was cited incorrectly and the public authority is required to disclose to the complainant the information withheld under these exemptions. Sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) are found to be engaged and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs disclosure. The Commissioner upholds the citing of section 40(2). He also finds that the public authority breached several of the procedural requirements of the Act in its handling of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50314945
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.530575

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Jan 2010

The complainant made a request to the BBC for an email it received in response to a research email during the making of an edition of ‘Panorama’. The BBC stated that the requested information falls outside the scope of the Act because it is information relating complaints about programme content and is therefore held for the purposes of art, journalism or literature. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information relates to the journalistic and research process associated with programme content, and that the BBC correctly determined that the information is held to a significant extent for the purposes of art, journalism or literature. Therefore the BBC is not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2010] UKICO FS50265778
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.531224

Barnet London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Oct 2012

The complainant has requested a copy of the One Barnet programme risk register. London Borough of Barnet provided a redacted version of the requested document and withheld the remaining information under the commercial interests and personal data exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has wrongly defined the scope of the request, that it has correctly withheld the personal information of third parties and that it has failed to demonstrate that the exemption for commercial interests is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the issues, elements of the risk register or issue a refusal notice; and to disclose the information from the risk register that it withheld under section 43(2) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50448565
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.529876

Department of The Environment Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Dec 2009

The complainant requested information relating to a boundary fence that was to be erected around Crawfordsburn Country Park. Information relating to three elements of the request was provided to the complainant following the initial information request. However the second and third elements were considered to be exempt under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. Initial information was provided in relation to the fourth element of the complainant’s request. The public authority advised that it did not hold any other information relating to this element of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that the exception is engaged in relation to parts 2 and 3 of the information request, and has decided that in all of the circumstances of this case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FER0204104
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.532413

Powys County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Nov 2009

The complainant requested information from Powys County Council (the Council) relating to discussions of proposed gypsy sites in south Powys. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications). The Commissioner finds that that the Council did not provide an appropriate response to this request since it has failed to conduct a thorough search of its records and has not therefore identified all information falling within the scope of the request. The Council has also breached regulations 5(2) and 14(3)(a) in its handling of this request. In light of these procedural breaches the Commissioner requires the Council to provide a revised response which complies with the requirements of the EIR. The Council is required to either provide the information requested or issue a valid refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FER0193204
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.532356

NHS Information Centre (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Nov 2009

The complainant requested information from an entry on the national register that was established under the National Registration Act 1939. Specifically he asked for information relating to a particular address, and the records of the people listed there. The public authority confirmed that it held information relevant to the request, but withheld it under sections 22, 40 and 41. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority informed him that it was no longer relying upon sections 22 and 41, and was only relying upon sections 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i). It also informed him that some of the withheld information related to deceased people. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the information relating to deceased people should be disclosed to the complainant. However, he also decided that the information relating to living individuals should be withheld under sections 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i). The Commissioner also found that the NHSIC failed to meet the requirements of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1) and 17(1)(b). Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2009/0109 has been dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50248664
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.532351

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Nov 2009

The complainant requested details on complaints forwarded to the Independent Complaints Assessor by the DVLA. The DVLA provided some information to the complainant, but cited the cost limit at section 12(1) of the Act in relation to the remainder of the requested information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the DVLA correctly relied on section 12(1), but finds that the DVLA breached 16(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50182746
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.532318

Uk Border Agency (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Jan 2011

The complainant requested information relating to the length of time taken to reach decisions with regard to refunding fees in ‘Indefinite Leave to Remain’ cases. The United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) responded to the request outside the statutory time limit. The complainant requested an internal review of the handling of his request. UKBA admitted its response did not provide the information requested and rectified the matter. It also accepted that it had breached section 10(1) of the Act concerning time for compliance.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50349838
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.530177

Warwickshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 4 Feb 2008

The complainant requested information on the commission payments made by investment managers on behalf of Warwickshire County Council (‘the Council’). The Council supplied the names of its investment managers however claimed that the remainder of the information was exempt on the basis that the exemptions in section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information held in confidence) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 43 was engaged by the information however the public interest in disclosing the majority of the information overrides the public interest in maintaining the exemption. He also decided that the exemption in section 41 was partially applicable, however the public interest defence inherent in the common law of confidence also meant that a disclosure of the majority of the information would not be actionable in law. The exemption was not therefore engaged by this information. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the information should be disclosed to the complainant, with minor redactions.
FOI 43: Partly upheld

[2008] UKICO FS50155427
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.532566

Financial Services Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Oct 2012

The complainant requested copies of correspondence between the Financial Services Authority and the Skipton Building Society concerning the raising of interest rates for some if its mortgage holders above a guaranteed maximum. The FSA withheld information under sections 40(2), 43(2) and 44. The Commissioner’s decision is that FSA has correctly applied sections 40(2), 43(2) and 44 to the information that it has withheld. The Commissioner does not therefore require the FSA to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50440806
Bailii

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.529908

Nottinghamshire County Teaching Primary Care Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Dec 2009

The complainant requested a letter of complaint about a named doctor’s surgery. He also requested who wrote it and when. The public authority explained that it was confidential and that it would not be provided. It then applied section 40(2) [third party personal data] to the source’s details in its internal review. The Commissioner has investigated this case and it became apparent that the letter could not be located within the costs limit. The Commissioner has therefore considered section 12(2) [the costs exclusion] and has found that it can be applied correctly. He finds a breach of section 17(5) for not providing a refusal notice that stated that the costs exclusion applied within twenty working days of receiving the request. In respect to the source’s name, he has considered section 40(2) and considers that this exemption has been applied correctly. In respect to the date, he is satisfied that the complainant has this information and has not considered it further. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50227557
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.532443

Central Bedfordshire Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Feb 2011

The complainant submitted a request to the Central Bedfordshire Council (‘the Council’) for information regarding the dates of visits Environmental Health Officers made in the period March to May 2006 in relation to a noise complaint. The Council did not provide a response to the complainant’s initial request. However, the complainant made a further request to the Council for the same information and the Council confirmed that the information was not held. The Commissioner has found that the Council has breached regulation 14(2) in failing to issue a refusal notice within the statutory time for compliance, and regulation 14(3)(a) in failing to cite the specific exception it relied upon in not disclosing the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0307974
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.530191

Charity Commission (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Dec 2009

The complainant requested information from the Charity Commission relating to an investigation carried out by a Receiver and Manager appointed by the Charity Commission into the financial affairs of two registered charities. The Charity Commission did not hold some of the requested information, provided the complainant with some, and refused to disclose the remainder on the grounds that it considered it to be exempt under sections 31, 40, 41 and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). It later made representations to the Commissioner that it considered the withheld information to be exempt under sections 32(2)(a) and 32(2)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner concluded that all of the withheld information was exempt under sections 32(2)(a) and (b). However, in handling this request the Commissioner has also concluded that the public authority failed to provide a refusal notice compliant with sections 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c) and 17(3) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 32 – Complaint Not upheld

[2009] UKICO FS50128888
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.532389

Ryedale District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 12 May 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about the ownership of two parcels of land in connection with arrangements for draining surface water from a development site. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ryedale District Council (the council) did not hold the information requested and that it has applied Regulation 12(4)(a) correctly. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0615527
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564792

West Sussex County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 9 May 2016

The complainant has requested information about an internal audit report. West Sussex County Council has withheld the information which it says is exempt from disclosure under section 36(2)(b) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that West Sussex County Council has correctly applied section 36(2)(c) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He does not require West Sussex County Council to take any steps.
FOI 36: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50610689
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564798

Thanet District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 5 May 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to Thanet District Council (the Council) for information from its files regarding planning issues concerning a particular piece of land. The Council provided the complainant with some information but withheld the remainder on the basis of section 31 of FOIA. The Council subsequently accepted that this request should have been considered under the EIR and therefore sought to rely instead on the exception contained at regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council is entitled to rely on this exception. However, in handling this request it did breach the procedural requirements of the EIR contained at regulations 14(2) and 14(3) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days and failing to initially deal with the request under the EIR.
EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld EIR 14(3): Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50599585
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564796

United Utilities (Private Companies ): ICO 12 May 2016

ICO The complainant made a request to United Utilities (UU) for information relating to the work being undertaken on behalf of United Utilities in Eccleston, St Helens. UU refused to comply with the request as it considers that some information is not held under regulation 12(4)(a) and that in any event the request is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) EIR. It also applied regulation 12(4)(c) and 12(5)(f) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the information requested is held by UU under regulation 12(4)(a) EIR (apart from part 13 of the request in relation to which it would be manifestly unreasonable to determine what is held). UU has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) EIR to the request in its entirety. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0590886
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564797

Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50604878: ICO 9 May 2016

ICO The complainant has made a number of requests to the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) for information broadly relating to the serving of section 146 notices in accordance with the Law of Property Act 1925. The present notice concerns six of the requests. With regard to five of the requests (requests 1, 5 – 7 and 10), the Commissioner has decided that the Council either does not hold any information, or does not hold any further information in addition to the records that have already been provided. In relation to the remaining request (request 4(a)), the Commissioner has determined that the Council was not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) (appropriate costs limit) of FOIA but that it did breach section 16 (advice and assistance) by its initial handling of the request. In light of his findings, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken by the Council as a result of this notice.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604878
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564793

Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50604998: ICO 9 May 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (‘the Council’) for a copy of leaseholder application forms for loan/charging orders in respect of debts for major works/service charge used between 2010-2015. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the complainant refined her request to ‘a copy of the leaseholder application forms for loans in respect of debts for major works/service charge used between 2013-2015’. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose a copy of leaseholder application forms for loans in respect of debts for major works/service charge used between 2013-2015 with information detailed at paragraph 3 redacted. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 40: Partly upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604998
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564794

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50596926: ICO 10 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about court costs and summonses from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). It handled part 1 of the request outside the FOIA; it said it did not hold the information requested in part 2; it relied on the cost exclusion in section 12(2) in relation to part 3 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ should have handled part 1 of the request under the FOIA. He finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ does not hold the information requested in parts 1 and 2 of the request. He has also found that the MOJ correctly relied on section 12(1) in refusing to provide the requested information in part 3 of the request. However, the MOJ failed to provide its response within the statutory 20 working days framework and thereby breached section 17(1) of the FOIA. In addition, the MOJ breached section 16 of the FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with advice and assistance as to how she might refine her request with a view to bringing it under the cost limit. He does not require the MOJ to take any remedial steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 8: Upheld FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50596926
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564780

HM Land Registry (Central Government ): ICO 3 May 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about a boundary change to her property. HM Land Registry (the Land Registry) has set out that no information falling within the scope of the request is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Land Registry was correct to assert that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require Land Registry to take any further steps.
EIR 5: Not upheld EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0603962
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564773

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50623124: ICO 5 May 2016

ICO The complainant made a multi-part request for information to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to individuals with responsibility for compliance with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to this request within the statutory timescale the MoJ breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50623124
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564783

Home Office (Central Government) FS50618706: ICO 3 May 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information about police powers under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act to detain mentally disordered persons found in public places. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to the request, the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50618706
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564778

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50616675: ICO 9 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about the provision of kosher food for Orthodox Jewish prisoners. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) provided the recorded information it held relevant to the request. During the investigation, the MOJ confirmed it should instead have relied on section 21 of FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means) for parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the request, because it said the information requested is available to the complainant in the prison library. For part 4, it provided the information it held in recorded form and also some discretionary information following enquiries with the Head of Catering at the specified prison. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ has provided all the recorded information it holds relevant to the request, where that information is not covered by section 21 of FOIA. He finds that the MOJ properly relied on section 21 because the information is reasonably accessible. However, the MOJ failed to provide its refusal to respond within the statutory 20 working days framework and thereby breached section 17(1) of FOIA. He does not require the MOJ to take any remedial steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 21: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50616675
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564782

Home Office (Central Government): ICO 10 May 2016

ICO The complainant asked for information relating to visa applications. The Home Office stated that it was unable to establish whether it held this information within the cost limit and therefore refused the request under section 12(2) (costs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 12(2) correctly and so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50595237
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564774

Rutland County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 12 May 2016

ICO The complainant submitted an eight-part request for information about harassment and bullying complaints in the workplace. Rutland County Council (the ‘Council’) provided some information, but refused the remainder citing sections 40(2) of FOIA, personal information, and 12, the cost exclusion. The complainant was concerned only with the Council’s reliance on section 40(2) which was applied to parts 2 to 6 of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of FOIA to parts 2 to 6 of the request, as the withheld information is sufficiently anonymised to take it out of the definition of personal data. He therefore requires the Council to disclose the withheld information as provided to the Commissioner for parts 2 to 6 of the request.
FOI 40: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50614409
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564791

Home Office (Central Government) FS50604484: ICO 3 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to meetings held with the Governments of Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia or Egypt to discuss migration. The Home Office provided some information within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder citing sections 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means), 27(1) (international relations), 36(2)(b)(i) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the Home Office’s application of sections 27(1) and 40(2) and has concluded that the Home Office was entitled to apply those exemptions to the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 27: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50604484
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564775

Home Office (Central Government) FS50611402: ICO 3 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about the seizure of illegal and counterfeit items at the Port of Tilbury in Essex. The Home Office confirmed it holds information with the scope of the request, but refused to provide it citing section 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement – the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b). No steps are required as a result of this decision.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50611402
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564776

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50614240: ICO 12 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the Gender Recognition Panel (GRP) including the list of names of the people who sit, or have sat, on that Panel. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it holds some of the requested information but refused to provide it citing sections 32(1)(c) (court records) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 40(2). His decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 40(2) to the majority of the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. However, a small part of the withheld information is not exempt under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the MoJ disclose a small part of the withheld information that is set out in the Confidential Annex to this Notice.
FOI 40: Partly upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50614240
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564781

Home Office (Central Government) (No 2): ICO 10 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information concerning plans for the placement of Syrian refugees. The Home Office refused this request under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 40(2) incorrectly and it is now required to comply with the request. The Commissioner also found that the Home Office breached section 17(1) of the FOIA in this case through its failure to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond afresh to the complainant, disclosing the answers required by the first and third parts of the request and seeking clarification about the second part of the request.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 40: Upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50614389
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564777

Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 9 May 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (‘the Council’) relating to emails between two individuals. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50612822
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564790

Flintshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 10 May 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about permitted distances between streetlights in Flintshire and a map showing the location and measurements of streetlights in a specific location. Flintshire County Council (‘the Council’) provided some information and confirmed other information was not held. During the course of the Commissioner’s information, the Council disclosed some additional information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the specific information requested by the complainant. The Commissioner also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under regulation 9 to provide appropriate advice and assistance. He does not require any steps to be taken.
EIR 5: Not upheld EIR 9: Not upheld EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0612848
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564769

Hackney London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 30 Jun 2011

The complainant asked London Borough of Hackney for a copy of external legal advice it received in respect of the action it took when a phone conversation was placed online. LBH said that it held the requested information, but would not provide it by virtue of section 42(1) of the Act (legal professional privilege). The complainant requested an internal review and LBH upheld its initial position. The Commissioner finds that the information was withheld appropriately under section 42(1). He is satisfied that the exemption was engaged and in all the circumstances of the case the balance of public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. However, he did find procedural breaches of the Act because LBH failed to answer the complainant’s request in 20 working days. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0162 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50357316
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.530559