Category: Information

Denbighshire County Council (Decision Notice) FS50065294: ICO 27 Jul 2006

The complainant requested information seen by Cabinet Members of Denbighshire County Council (DCC) in relation to the unexpected retirement of the Corporate Director of Lifelong Learning. The complainant had been in correspondence with DCC about its response to earlier FOIA requests of a similar nature submitted by other parties. DCC’s response did not explicitly state which exemption it sought to apply when refusing to provide the requested information, and nor did it offer an internal review or provide the information about the complainant’s right to complain to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has decided that DCC therefore failed to comply with some of its procedural obligations under FOIA when responding to this request. The Commissioner recognises that DCC was alluding to section 40 (Personal Data) as the basis for its refusal. Having examined the information caught by the scope of this request, the Commissioner decided that DCC had correctly applied section 40 in the circumstances of this case. More information about the Commissioner’s reasoning in this case can be found in the decision notice transcript.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50065294

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.533491

NHS Norfolk (Decision Notice): ICO 18 Mar 2013

The complainant made a freedom of information request to NHS Norfolk for information regarding personnel issues, governance and management of the Trust. The complainant has not received a substantive response to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to issue a response in compliance with section 1 of the FOIA or otherwise issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50480096

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.528129

Stephen v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 10 Oct 2013

FTTGc This case arises out of the publication by the Lancet in 1998 of the flawed paper by Andrew Wakefield et al which led to the MMR scare. The Legal Aid Board supported proceedings by parents against the pharmaceutical companies. In 2006 the statutory successor to the Board – the Legal Services Commission (LSC) provided some of its documents relating to this funding to the General Medical Council (GMC) for the purposes of its disciplinary proceedings against Wakefield. The claimant sought disclosure of documents relating to the grant of Legal Aid.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT EA – 2013 – 0109 (GRC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, Legal Aid

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.517992

X and East Ayrshire Council: SIC 20 Nov 2008

Mr X made an information request to East Ayrshire Council (the Council) for information concerning social work complaints. The Council initially failed to respond to this request, and Mr X sought a review. The Council provided a response, but Mr X was dissatisfied with the handling of this request and he applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner found that the Council had breached Part 1 of FOISA, in particular by failing to comply with the timescale required by section 10(1)(a), and by failing to advise Mr X of his right to make an application to the Commissioner in line with section 21(10). However, the Commissioner found that the Council had complied with Part 1 of FOISA by supplying the information Mr X had requested.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 143 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.434247

Q and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 20 Nov 2008

Mr Q requested from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) a wide range of documents relating to or discussing the issue of prisoner access to IT facilities. The SPS responded by providing Mr Q with some of the information he had requested, but it withheld the remaining information on the grounds that it was exempt from disclosure in terms of section 29 of FOISA (which applies to information that relates to the formulation of Scottish Administration policy). Following a review, Mr Q remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the SPS withdrew its application of section 29 of FOISA and instead claimed, in terms of section 12(1) of FOISA that it was not obliged to respond to the request because the projected costs of doing so would exceed pounds 600. The Commissioner found that section 12 of FOISA did apply in this case, and so the SPS was not obliged to deal with the outstanding parts of Mr Q’s request for information. He found that the SPS had not breached of Part 1 of FOISA by refusing to provide the remaining information sought, albeit on different grounds from those ultimately considered in this decision.
However, the Commissioner did find that the SPS had breached Part 1 of FOISA by failing to respond to Mr Q’s request within the timescale required by section 10(1) of FOISA. He did not require
the SPS to take any action with respect to this particular failure in response to this decision.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 144 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.434244

R and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 13 Oct 2008

Mr R made three related and overlapping requests for information to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). The SPS’s responses provided some information and indicated that other information was not held, but in some instances failed to address certain parts of the request. Mr R was not satisfied with the SPS’s responses and sought reviews in each case. Following a review which addressed each request, Mr R remained dissatisfied and made two applications to the Commissioner for a decision, stating that the SPS had not provided all information he requested.
During the investigation, the SPS undertook further searches and identified and disclosed additional information relevant to Mr R’s requests. Following these additional disclosures, the Commissioner was satisfied that the SPS had addressed each of Mr R’s requests and provided relevant information.
However, the Commissioner identified a number of breaches of Part 1 of FOISA in the SPS’s handling of these requests and he was critical of the SPS for failing to conduct fuller searches to identify relevant information when it first responded to these. The Commissioner also found that the SPS had failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance to Mr R with respect to parts of his requests seeking information that was his own personal data.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 133 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.434239

Ezsias v Welsh Ministers: CA 24 Jun 2008

Renewed application for leave to appeal against orders making a limited declaration that there were certain breaches on the defendant’s part of their obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 in that they did not disclose all disclosable personal data to the claimant within the statutory 40-day time limit, but otherwise his claim for a declaration of their failure to disclose all relevant personal data was dismissed. He ordered that the claimant pay the defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis after 29 June 2007.
Held: Leave granted.

Judges:

Ward LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 874

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust EAT 25-Jul-2006
EAT Employment Tribunal struck out unfair dismissal claims stating they were bound to fail. The employers had made two applications, one for a deposit to be ordered pursuant to rule 20 of the Employment Tribunal . .
See Also – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust CA 7-Mar-2007
The employer had applied to strike out their employee’s claim for unfair dismissal, and also sought a deposit from the claimant. The claim had been re-instated by the EAT.
Held: A claim should not be struck out where, as here, there were facts . .
Appeal from – Ezsias v The Welsh Ministers QBD 23-Nov-2007
The Claimant claimed under Section 7(9) of the 1998 Act for failures to disclose data to him following several requests. He sought (i) a declaration that the National Assembly had failed to comply with their obligations under the 1998 Act, (ii) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277730

Homes and Communities Agency (Education (Other)): ICO 11 Oct 2016

The complainant has requested a copy of a lease agreement between the Homes and Communities Agency, Victoria Quay Estate Limited and Westcourt Real Estate (Europe) Limited and Camper and Nicholsons Marinas Limited. The Homes and Communities Agency provided some of the requested information and withheld other information under the exception for the confidentiality of commercial information, regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Homes and Communities Agency has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(5)(e): Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FER0622661

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.572880

Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 23 Apr 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (‘the Council’) for information relating to the repairs on communal parts of a block of flats. The Commissioner’s decision is that Council has correctly applied section 40 of FOIA to withhold the flat numbers where a repair was raised to a communal part of an individual flat. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568164

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.555355

Merseyside Police (Decision Notice): ICO 14 Mar 2013

The complainant has requested disclosure of a photograph held by the Merseyside Police force (the police) and used by it as evidence while investigating certain criminal and related matters. The photograph was alleged to evidence improper conduct by then serving members of the police while they were on duty. The Commissioner’s decision is that the police have applied FOIA correctly in relying on the exemption at section 30(1) and the associated public interest balance to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the police to take any steps beyond those already agreed to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50466997

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.528117

Sunderland City Council (Decision Notice) FS50380006: ICO 3 Nov 2011

The complainant submitted two requests to Sunderland City Council for information regarding funding for business initiatives. The public authority refused the requests, citing section 14(1) of the Act, which applies to vexatious requests. The Commissioner has investigated and found that, on balance, the council was not entitled to refuse the requests under section 14(1). The Commissioner therefore requires the council to either comply with section 1(1) or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50380006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.531114

Legal Services Commission (Decision Notice) FS50470255: ICO 27 Mar 2013

The complainant requested information from the Legal Services Commission (LSC) about legal aid payments in relation to named defendants and the nature of their cases. The LSC neither confirmed or denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that confirmation or denial would disclose third party personal data and that the disclosure of this personal data would be in breach of the first data protection principle. His decision therefore is that the LSC correctly refused the request for information under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50470255

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.528110

Mercer v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 11 Jul 2014

Appeal against the Information Commissioner’s Decision FS50498344 dated 22nd October 2013 which concluded that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) had correctly applied s42(1) FOIA (legal professional privilege) to the disputed information.
Held: The Appeal is refused

Judges:

Fiona Henderson (Judge)

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 2013 – 0250 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.534399

Legal Services Commission (Decision Notice) FS50470358: ICO 27 Mar 2013

The complainant requested information about payments in respect of high cost criminal cases. The Legal Services Commission (LSC) provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to disclose the remainder citing section 40(2) of FOIA, personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LSC correctly applied the section 40 exemption. He requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50470358

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.528111

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v Sengar: QBD 11 Jul 2014

Application for interim injunctive relief requiring the delivery up of certain property belonging to the Claimant (‘Tata’) and the deletion of any soft copies of that property, and prohibiting the Defendant (‘Mr Sengar’) from communicating or disclosing to any person Tata’s proprietary and confidential information as well as from inducing or procuring any third party to provide him with Tata’s proprietary and confidential information.

Judges:

Simon Picken QC

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2304 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd ChD 1968
Requirememts to prove breach of confidence
A claim was made for breach of confidence in respect of technical information whose value was commercial.
Held: Megarry J set out three elements which will normally be required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.534307

HS2 Ltd (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Mar 2013

The complainant requested a full organisation chart from High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd. HS2 Ltd refused to provide a full copy of its internal organisation chart citing section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) and 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 40(2) is engaged and that disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act (the DPA). He requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50481987

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.528103

Kidd MSP and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission: SIC 13 Oct 2008

Mr Bill Kidd MSP requested from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (the SCCRC) information relating to cases of defective representation received against a named solicitor. The SCCRC responded by advising Mr Kidd that it considered the information to be exempt from disclosure in terms of section 26(a) of FOISA due to a prohibition on disclosure contained in section 194J of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (the CPSA). Following a review, Mr Kidd remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SCCRC had dealt with Mr Kidd’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by correctly applying the exemption in section 26(a) and by withholding the requested information.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 134 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.434234

Edwards and Scottish Ministers 139 – 2008: SIC 5 Nov 2008

Mr Edwards requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) all unpublished information held in relation to the decision to call in the planning application by Trump International Golf Links Scotland for a golf course at Balmedie, Aberdeenshire. The Ministers responded by stating that they had decided to publish certain documents and provided Mr Edwards with a link to the relevant part of the Scottish Government web site. However, the Ministers also withheld certain documentation under the terms of sections 25, 30(b), 36(1) and 38(1)(b) of FOISA. Following a review, Mr Edwards remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, it was put to the Ministers that the information withheld was environmental information and following further consideration they accepted that the request should properly have been dealt with under the EIRs. The Ministers thereafter relied upon the exceptions under regulations 10(4)(d), 10(4)e) and 10(5)(d) of the EIRs in withholding the information. Since the information was considered environmental information they also relied upon section 39(2) of FOISA.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers should have dealt with Mr Edwards’ request for information under the EIRs. While he accepted that certain information could properly be withheld under regulation 10(5)(d) of the EIRs, he did not accept their application of exceptions to certain other information and required its release.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 139 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.434245

Gordon and Scottish Ministers: SIC 2 Oct 2008

Mr Tom Gordon requested all records held in relation to Annex B of Choosing Scotland’s Future, a Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers). The Ministers responded by informing Mr Gordon that the information he sought was exempt under FOISA. Following a review, Mr Gordon remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had dealt with Mr Gordon’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, on the basis that it was exempt under section 29(1)(a) of FOISA.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 130 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.434240

Ellis and Ellis and Scottish Ministers: SIC 27 Nov 2008

Mr and Mrs Ellis requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) a copy of a report to Ministers and related information. The Ministers responded by providing some information to Mr and Mrs Ellis, but withheld the remainder under section 39(2) of FOISA (on the basis that it was environmental information and therefore subject to the EIRs) and regulations 10(4)(e) and 10(5)(d) of the EIRs. Following a review (which resulted in the release of some further information) Mr and Mrs Ellis remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had dealt with Mr and Mrs Ellis’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA and the EIRs, in particular by withholding the information as internal communications under regulation 10(4)(e) of the EIRs. He did not require the Ministers to take any action.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 147 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.434250

Redbridge London Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 19 Mar 2015

The complainant requested information from London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) relating to the Council’s RAG ratings of nursery and primary schools in a specified area. The Council confirmed it held relevant information but refused to provide it citing section 36(2)(b)(i) (inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice), 36(2)(b)(ii) (inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) is not engaged and that while sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) are engaged, the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the information withheld under sections 36(2)(b) and (c).
FOI 36: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50560473

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.555247

Edwards and Scottish Ministers 140 – 2008: SIC 5 Nov 2008

This decision relates to a request from Mr Edwards for the contents of a file held by the Scottish Ministers, i.e. file IMI 2/11: Security and the Terrorist Threat. The Ministers released 13 documents from the file to Mr Edwards, five of which had been redacted.
The Ministers also advised Mr Edwards that they did not ‘hold’ some of the documents in the file, as they had been provided to them by the United Kingdom Government and they held this information in confidence in terms of section 3(2)(a)(ii) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). This meant that they fell outwith the scope of FOISA. The Ministers also relied on a number of exemptions in FOISA for withholding certain information contained in the file from Mr Edwards. Mr Edwards was dissatisfied with this response and, following an internal review, applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Commissioner came to the view that some of the information which had been withheld from Mr Edwards was environmental information as defined by the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (the EIRs). He therefore considered whether the Ministers should have made that information available to Mr Edwards under the EIRS.
The Commissioner found that the Ministers had been entitled, under both FOISA and the EIRs, to withhold some of the information contained in the file from Mr Edwards. He also found that some of the information requested by Mr Edwards was not held by the Ministers in terms of either section 3(2)(a)(ii) of FOISA and/or regulation 2(2)(a) of the EIRs.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 140 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.434246

E Sutherland-Loveday and Scottish Borders Council: SIC 22 Mar 2006

SIC Request for disclosure of a report of a property inspection carried out on behalf of Berwickshire Housing Association.
Request for a report that had been produced by Scottish Borders Council on behalf of Berwickshire Housing Association following the inspection of a property owned by the applicant – section 34 investigations by Scottish public authorities and proceedings arising out of such investigations – section 35 law enforcement.

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 047 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.434535

Daventry District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 16 Jan 2017

The complainant has requested detailed information about payments made to a contractor in respect of works carried out at Weedon churchyard. The complainant requires the costs of the works for a five year period, broken down to reflect individual jobs. The Council has determined that whilst it does hold a contract for groundwork and maintenance, including that carried out at Weedon, it does not hold any information to the detail which the complainant seeks. The Commissioner has determined that Daventry District Council does not hold the information which the complainant has requested. The Commissioner has therefore decided that the Council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50641649

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.579751

West Lancashire Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 6 May 2015

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the West Lancashire Borough Council (‘the Council’) for details of the number of legal notices served by its environmental protection section. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA on the grounds that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) was correctly applied and he requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50563398

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555432

Cheshire Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 16 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information in connection with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN). Cheshire Constabulary disclosed some information and withheld the remainder, citing the non-disclosure exemption at 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is properly engaged. He does not require any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50573234

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555455

Commission for Equality and Human Rights (Central Government): ICO 13 May 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to St Mary’s University and an alleged breach of the Equality Act. The EHRC provided the complainant with some information in response to the request but redacted some information from a letter it provided to the complainant under section 31(1)(g) with section 2(a) and (c) and section 41 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EHRC has correctly applied section 41 FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 41: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50569509

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555388

Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) (Central Government): ICO 12 May 2015

In a three part request, the complainant has requested type approval information about a particular type of Porsche vehicle. The VCA has refused to comply with part 1 of the request, which it says is partly vexatious under FOIA section 14(1) and, to the extent that it also contains environmental information, is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. It has refused to comply with part 2 of the request as to do so would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12 of the FOIA for some of the information and, to the extent that it also contains environmental information, responding to the request would also be manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b). It says it does not hold the information requested at part 3. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Part 1 of the request is manifestly unreasonable by virtue of being vexatious under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and the VCA is correct not to comply with it. The public interest favours withholding the information. Part 2 exceeds the appropriate cost limit under section 12 of the FOIA for some of the information. In relation to the information which constitutes environmental information it is also a manifestly unreasonable request by virtue of cost under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and the public interest also favours withholding the information. The VCA is therefore correct not to comply with it. On balance, the VCA does not hold the information requested at part 3 and has therefore met its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA and regulation 5 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the VCA to take any further steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 12: Not upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0569334

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555431

Parole Board (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 11 May 2015

The complainant requested information from the Parole Board relating to its decision to release a named individual from prison. The Parole Board confirmed it held some relevant information but refused to disclose it citing section 44 (prohibition on disclosure) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it additionally cited section 32 (court records). The Commissioner has investigated the Parole Board’s application of section 44. His decision is that it was entitled to apply section 44(1)(a) to the withheld information. He requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 44: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50563850

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555421

Darlington Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 9 Sep 2015

The complainant has made a request to Darlington Borough Council (‘the council’) for information relating to ‘bedroom tax’. The council refused the request under the exclusion provided by section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly refused the request under section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50567582

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555786

Disclosure and Barring Service (Central Government): ICO 5 May 2015

The complainant requested information from the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) in relation to an individual who had been convicted of offences. DBS refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBS cited section 40(5) correctly and so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the information requested by the complainant.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50578246

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555394

Forestry Commission England (Central Government): ICO 12 May 2015

The complainant has requested the forestry licence for a piece of land, including the name and address of the licence applicant. The Forestry Commission (the FC) provided the licence but redacted the personal details of the licensee under Regulation 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FC has correctly applied regulation 13(1) to this redacted personal data. There are no steps to be taken.
EIR 13: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0573217

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555398

Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 5 May 2015

The complainant has requested information connected to an incident involving a man who had been questioned over the alleged sexual assault of a 14 year old girl. The Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) provided some information, advised that some information is not held and cited the exemptions at sections 30(1)(a)(i)(investigations and proceedings) and 40(2)(personal information) for the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that, where stated, the MPS does not hold the requested information. He also finds that section 30(1)(a)(i) is engaged and that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 30: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50574317

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555389

Department of The Environment Northern Ireland (Central Government): ICO 12 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to planning policies concerning wind energy. The Department of the Environment stated that it had already provided all the relevant information it held in response to a previous request made by the complainant. The complainant disagreed and requested an internal review. The Department failed to provide the complainant with the outcome of the internal review until the Commissioner intervened. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department failed to comply with regulation 11(4) of the EIR. No further steps are required.
EIR 11: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0565436

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555187

High Speed Two Limited (Education (Other)): ICO 16 Mar 2015

The complainant made a freedom of information request to HS2 Ltd for copies of reports prepared by the Major Projects Authority on its assessment of the HS2 rail project (‘HS2’). HS2 Ltd dealt with the request under the Freedom of Information Act and refused the request under the section 35(1)(a) exemption although during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it changed its reliance to the section 36(2)(b) and (c) exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is for environmental information and ought to have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). The Commissioner considered whether the regulation 12(4)(e) exception (internal communications) would apply but found that it was not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant copies of the MPA reports from November 2011 and June 2012. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0090 withdrawn.
FOI 36: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0536325

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555203

Countess of Chester Hospital (Health (Other)): ICO 12 Mar 2015

The complainant made a series of 16 requests to the Countess of Chester Hospital (the Hospital) between the 2 July 2014 and 8 August 2014 in respect of the use of a particular laxative, Movicol, in the treatment of children under five years old. The Hospital provided some information, relied on section 40(2) – personal information, to withheld information on the number of children under five treated with the drug over a given period and denied holding other information. The complainant has complained to the Commissioner about the responses to three of these requests. These include the refusal to provide her with statistics on the use of the drug on under-fives and two requests for information about the risks assessment and approval of the drug which the Hospital denies holding. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Hospital has dealt with these requests in accordance with the provisions of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in respect of these requests.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50547471

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555180

Bridgnorth District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 12 May 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to tenders for provision of the 2014 Christmas lights. Bridgnorth Town Council disclosed some information and withheld other information because it was subject to ‘commercial confidentiality’; it also suggested that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bridgnorth Town Council: Failed to issue a compliant refusal notice and breached section 17(1) and 17(5) of the FOIA. Failed to demonstrate that the request was vexatious under section 14(1) and failed to show that the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2) was engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested tender information to the complainant. The public authority 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 14: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 43: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50565917

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555372

Plymouth City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 16 Mar 2015

The complainant requested the names of two parties connected to the reporting of an alleged burial of industrial waste. Plymouth City Council (the ‘Council’) initially confirmed that it held the requested information but advised that it was exempt by virtue of section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it subsequently advised that it had not recorded the names so the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information; he does however find a breach of section 16. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50562989

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555242

Aberystwyth Town Council (Local Government (Town Council)): ICO 5 May 2015

The complainant requested a copy of the minutes of the staffing panel meeting in May 2013. Aberystwyth Town Council (‘the Council’) stated that it did not hold the information requested which the complainant subsequently contested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. He does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50572379

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555365

Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust (Health (NHS)): ICO 11 Mar 2015

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust ‘the Trust’ for a copy of the user guide for ‘RiO’ its electronic Patient Record System. The Trust refused the request under the section 43(2) (commercial interests) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) was correctly applied and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 43: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50560264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555251

Ascham Homes (Education (Other)): ICO 21 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to the exclusion of a specific property from a scheme to install solar panels. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Ascham Homes does not hold the requested information. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50563934

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.555266