Category: Information

Durham Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50630222: ICO 26 Apr 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information about the recent court case concerning the football player Adam Johnson. Durham Police withheld the information under sections 30(1) (investigations), 38 (health and safety) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Durham Police have applied section 30(1) of FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner does not require Durham Police to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
FOI 30: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50630222

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583844

Department for Communities and Local Government (Central Government): ICO 26 Apr 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information from the Department for Communities and Local Government (the Department) concerning the decision to cease Cornish Language funding. The Department initially relied on section 36 to withhold the requested information. However, during the course of this investigation, it instead sought to rely on section 35. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to rely of section 35 to withhold the requested information. However, in taking 114 working days to complete the public interest test and respond fully to the request, the Commissioner finds that the Department has breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Department to take any steps in this case.
FOI 35: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50646198

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583841

Durham Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50630163: ICO 26 Apr 2017

ICO The complainant has requested about a meeting between Durham Police and Sunderland Association Football Club regarding allegations against one of its footballers. Durham Police withheld the information under sections 30(1) (investigations), 38 (health and safety) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Durham Police has applied section 30(1) of FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner does not require Durham Constabulary to take any steps as a result of this decision.
FOI 30: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50630163

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583843

Charity Commission for Northern Ireland (Other): ICO 12 Apr 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to the sale of land by the RC Parish of Maghera, in Newcastle, County Down, Northern Ireland. The CCNI provided the complainant with some information, however it refused to disclose the remainder (‘the withheld information,’) citing sections 40(2), 41 and 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCNI has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the information withheld under that section and that it has correctly applied section 41 to some of the remaining withheld information, however some should be disclosed as section 41 is not applicable to it. The Commissioner has not considered the CCNI’s application of section 43(2), the reason for which is explained later in the Decision Notice. The Commissioner requires the CCNI to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation -To disclose the information to which section 41 of FOIA does not apply, which is set out in a confidential annex to this Notice. 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 41: Partly upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50628820

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583838

Cambridgeshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 4 Apr 2017

ICO The complainant has requested to re-use Public Rights of Way information provided to him in response to a previous request under the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire County Council has breached regulation 12(2) of RPSI by unnecessarily restricting the way in which a document can be re-used. She has also decided that Cambridgeshire County Council has not breached regulation 8(1) of RPSI but has failed to comply with regulation 17(3) of RPSI. The Commissioner requires the public authority to grant re-use of the requested information under the Open Government Licence in order to ensure compliance with the legislation.
RPSI 12(2): Upheld RPSI 8(1): Not upheld RPSI 17(3): Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50619465

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583834

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50650170: ICO 5 Apr 2017

The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office in relation to a Subject Access Request (SAR) he had submitted under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it considered the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to refuse the request under section 14(1) of the Act. No steps are required.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50650170

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583833

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50611073: ICO 3 Apr 2017

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information (the Commission). The Cabinet Office denied holding information for one part of the complainant’s request. For the other requests, it refused to disclose the relevant information because it was third party personal data under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Cabinet Office denied holding information for another part of the request, and for the others cited further exemptions: Section 35(1)(a) – for the information in its entirety; Section 35(1)(b) – for the specific correspondence which was communication between ministers; Section 36(2)(c) – should the Commissioner find that section 35 did not apply; Section 41(1) – for the correspondence concerning Jack Straw MP. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Cabinet Office does not hold information relating to contact with the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties regarding the setting up of the Commission, or views or correspondence on the suitability of Jack Straw MP and Lord Carlisle. The Commissioner’s decision regarding section 35(1)(a) is that the exemption is engaged for the information in its entirety, and that the balance of the public interest test favours maintaining the exemption. The Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) by citing additional exemptions late. As the complainant has been informed of these new exemptions the Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to correspondence further on this. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 35: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50611073

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583832

Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (Local Government (Borough Council)) FS50624753: ICO 2 Mar 2017

The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (‘the Council’) broadly relating to properties within the Borough. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to the information falling within the scope of request 1 which relates to freehold properties. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50624753

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583805

Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (Local Government (Borough Council)) FS5624753: ICO 2 Mar 2017

The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (‘the Council’) broadly relating to properties within the Borough. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to the information falling within the scope of request 1 which relates to freehold properties. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS5624753

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583806

Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50655545: ICO 23 Mar 2017

ICO The complainant requested from Southwark Council copies of all leaseholder application forms for loans in respect of major works/service charge arrears for the periods 2012 and 2010-2013. Southwark Council refused to provide the requested information citing Section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that Southwark Council has correctly applied Section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require Southwark Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50655545

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583809

Telford and Wrekin Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 28 Mar 2017

Telford and Wrekin Council refused to provide some of the requested information it held. It based this refusal on the following exemptions; sections 38 (health and safety), 40 (2) (personal data), 41 (information provided in confidence), 42 (legal professional privilege) and 43 (commercial sensitivity). The Commissioner’s decision is that Telford and Wrekin Council has not persuaded her that the aforesaid exemptions (save for section 40 (2) are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose, to the complainant, the information that it has withheld by reference to the aforesaid sections save it is not to disclose information it has withheld by reference to section 40(2).
FOI 38: Upheld FOI 41: Upheld FOI 42: Upheld FOI 43: Upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50614046

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583817

Welsh Government (Central Government): ICO 7 Mar 2017

ICO The complainant requested information relating to an application made for a particular property to be listed. The Welsh Government disclosed the documents requested, subject to some information being redacted under section 40(2). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Welsh Government disclosed some additional information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request falls to be considered under the EIR and the Welsh Government has correctly applied regulation 13 to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
EIR 13: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50640738

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583825

Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50646482: ICO 28 Mar 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information from Southwark Council (‘the Council’) relating to a question submitted to Council Assembly, the procedure when making a complaint against the Monitoring Officer and a decision made by the Standards Committee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided the complainant with all the information it holds that falls within the scope of requests 1 and 2. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps. ,br />FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50646482

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583808

Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50668974: ICO 23 Mar 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (‘the Council’) relating to the Council’s Habitual Complainants Policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it is a repeated request and falls under section 14(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50668974

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583812

Regent’s University London (Education (University)): ICO 2 Mar 2017

The complainant has requested information from Regent’s University London (‘the University’) about its security department. The University did not initially respond. It subsequently explained that it had not received the request, and, in any event, it would not have been obliged to respond on the basis that it is not a public authority for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner has determined that the University is not subject to FOIA and therefore it does not have a duty to issue a response under the legislation. Accordingly she does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
FOI 3: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50654970

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583799

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)) FS50657153: ICO 14 Mar 2017

ICO The complainant requested information relating to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council)’s ‘Final Sites and Policies’ document. The Council cited section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means). It also provided the complainant with advice and assistance, citing section 16 of the FOIA. The complainant disputed that the Council had provided the requested information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council confirmed that, contrary to its original responses, it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner has investigated whether the Council held information within the scope of the request. Her decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold the requested information. However, by failing to inform the complainant that it did not hold information of the description specified in his request, the Council breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 1: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50657153

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583802

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Education (Other)): ICO 23 Mar 2017

The complainant has requested information from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) about a publication. PHSO says it does not hold the specific information that has been requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that PHSO does not hold the requested information and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1). The Commissioner finds that PHSO breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. Finally, she has found there has been no beach of section 16(1) (advice and assistance). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 16: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50643970

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583792

Nhs Commissioning Board (Nhs England) (Health (Nhs)): ICO 30 Mar 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to payments made by NHS England (including CSUs and other business units) for 2014/15. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England (NHSE) has breached section 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA. Since this complaint was made NHSE has provided a response to the complainant and therefore the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50662665

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583786

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)) FS50657154: ICO 14 Mar 2017

ICO The complainant requested information relating to Rotherham Metropolitan District Council (the Council)’s Submission Sites and Policies Consultation Statement. The complainant disputed the Council’s position with respect to some of the requested information namely information relating to meetings involving community/resident groups. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not hold this information and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50657154

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583803

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health (NHS)): ICO 23 Mar 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence between NHS England and a particular dental practice. NHS England refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA as it said that it would exceed the cost limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England was correct to apply section 12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. It did not however provide the complainant with sufficient advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHS England to provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance or explain why this would not be possible.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50655447

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583785

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 30 Mar 2017

IC The complainant requested information relating to the Rotherham Development Plan. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) cited section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21(1) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response under the FOIA or EIR.
FOI 21: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50657152

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583801

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health (NHS)) FS50640679: ICO 9 Mar 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint he made. NHS England provided the complainant with some information which fell within the scope of the request which amounted to his own personal data. This was provided under the Data Protection Act 1998. It refused to disclose the requested information under FOIA as it applied section 31(1)(g) and 36(2)(c) to all of the withheld information and section 41, 40(1) and 40(2) to parts of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England correctly applied section 36(2)(c) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 36: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50640679

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583784

Home Office (Central Government) FS50663712: ICO 9 Mar 2017

The complainant requested historical information relating to the maternity pay and leave entitlement of a civil servant. 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 within the statutory time frame of 20 working days, 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 as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50663712

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583755

Home Office (Central Government) FS50654483: ICO 16 Mar 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to five men arrested in the Winchelsea beach area, on suspicion of entering the UK illegally. The Home Office failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (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

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50654483

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.583752

Home Office (Central Government) FS50652156: ICO 6 Mar 2017

ICO The complainant requested a list of names and associated details of individuals ‘presumed dead’ under the Presumption of Death Act 2013. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information on the basis that it is reasonably accessible by other means (section 21 of FOIA). The Commissioner finds that section 21 applies to all of the requested information. She does not require the Home Office to take any steps to comply with FOIA.
FOI 21: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50652156

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.583751

Home Office (Central Government) FS50649456: ICO 16 Mar 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information about citizenship refusals from the Home Office (the ‘HO’). The HO refused to provide the information citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA on the basis that individuals could be identified. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO has incorrectly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA as the withheld information is sufficiently anonymised to take it out of the definition of personal data. The Commissioner therefore requires the HO to disclose the withheld information.
FOI 40: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50649456

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.583750

General Dental Council (Local Government (Other)) FS50639735: ICO 2 Mar 2017

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the Hudson report and a Professional Standards Association report. The GDC refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(1)(g) with subsection (2)(d) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GDC has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with subsection 2(d) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50639735

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.583734

Greater Manchester Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 14 Mar 2017

The complainant has requested copies of the training materials used by Greater Manchester Police (‘GMP’) in its Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent (‘WRAP’) training sessions. GMP refused to disclose this information under the exemptions provided by sections 24(1) (national security), 31(1) (law enforcement) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP was entitled to rely on section 24(1) to refuse to disclose the requested information. However, she found procedural breaches relating to the time GMP took to deal with the request and the internal review.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 24: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50632283

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.583738