Northamptonshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to a contract for day care provision. Northamptonshire County Council initially stated that the information was not held but subsequently disclosed the information during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire County Council failed to disclose the requested information within the statutory time limit and breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50670863

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602326

Ministry of Justice (Central Government): ICO 4 Oct 2017

The complainant requested information about the duties and responsibilities of sessional prison chaplains and payments made to them. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice relied correctly on the section 14(1) FOIA exemption (vexatious or repeated requests). The Commissioner also decided that, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, MOJ had breached section 10(1) FOIA (time for compliance). As a response has been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any further steps.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50661825

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602319

Department of Health (Central Government): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department of Health (DoH) for information related to meetings with Ian Cumming, the Chief Executive of Health Education England. The DoH disclosed some information falling within the scope of the request under but withheld some information under the section 35(1)(a) (policy formulation and development), section 35(1)(d) (operation of ministerial private office) and section 40(2) (personal information) exemptions. During the course of the investigation it disclosed some further information to the complainant and confirmed that rather than section 35, it was now seeking to rely on the section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs etc) exemption to withhold the remaining undisclosed information. The Commissioner has decided that the remaining withheld information is exempt under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also found that section 40(2) applies to the name and contact details of one individual named in the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 36: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50655951

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602270

Kent County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to a letter sent to them by the council regarding a planning application. Kent County Council initially refused the request under the exemption for Legal Professional Privilege – section 42 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it reconsidered the request under the EIR and applied the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent County Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and 14 of the EIR and, correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 5(1): Upheld EIR 13: Upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50677503

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602307

West Midlands Ambulance Service (Health (Other)): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant has requested information about 999 calls where technician or emergency care assistant-only teams were the first or only responders, for particular years. West Midlands Ambulance Service (WMAS) released some information and withheld some under section 22 of the FOIA (information intended for future publication) and section 22A (research). The Commissioner’s decision is that, with regard to requests 3 and 4, WMAS does not hold the information on particular categories of ambulance call outs for the months June to December 2016. She finds WMAS breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA in this regard as it had confirmed it held information that it did not hold. The Commissioner has also decided that, at the time of the request, the information within the scope of request 1 that WMAS holds did not engage either section 22(1) or section 22A. WMAS was instructed to release this information to the complainant during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. If it has not already done so, WMAS must take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Release to the complainant the information it holds that falls within the scope of request 1, for the months June to December 2016.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 22: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50676366

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602358

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant made a request to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) for information on a proposed new road. The council refused to comply with the request under the exception in regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner has decided that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged and that, in the specific circumstances of this request, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. She does, however, find that the council breached regulation 5(2) as it did not provide its refusal notice within 20 working days of the date of receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0636600

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602342

Simon Langton Girls’ Grammar School (Education (School)): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant made a series of requests to the school. By the conclusion of the investigation the only outstanding matter was the school’s alleged failure to provide the personnel advice it had received from the council relating to its head teacher at the time. Ultimately the school argued that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner finds that on the balance of probabilities the school does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in respect this request.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50658803

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602341

Staffordshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant made a three part request about an assessment (the ‘Assessment’) which was undertaken in connection with two criminal investigations by Staffordshire Police (‘SP’). In respect of part (1) of the request, SP disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing the exemptions at sections 40(2)(personal information) and 31(1)(a), (b) and (g) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. In respect of parts (2) and (3), SP failed to provide a response. The Commissioner’s decision is that SP was entitled to rely on the exemptions cited in part (1) of the request; however, she finds that SP should have cited section 40(1) in respect of some of that information. In failing to respond to any part of the request within the statutory time limit SP breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of the FOIA. Additionally, in failing to state whether or not its holds information in respect of parts (2) and (3), it breached section 1(1). In respect of parts (2) and (3) of the request the Commissioner requires SP to either provide the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 31: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50673467

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602346

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (Central Government): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant has requested information on database design and columns in all of the DVLA’s databases. The DVLA refused the request, relying on section 12 of the FOIA as it considered that to provide the information would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 of the FOIA is not engaged in this case. She also found that the DVLA has breached section 16 of the FOIA as it provided no advice or assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with section 1 of the FOIA without relying on section 12 of the FOIA.
FOI 12: Upheld FOI 16: Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50672711

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602274

Warwickshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant made a request to Warwickshire County Council (the Council) for information on a proposed new road. The Council refused to provide the requested information and cited regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not provided persuasive arguments to engage regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner considers that in the specific circumstances of this case, regulation 12(4)(b) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b). 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.
EIR 12(4)(b): Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0637124

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602354

Transport for London (Education (Other)): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant has requested information on private hire operators in London including the number of vehicles registered with each one. Transport for London (TfL) refused to provide this information on the basis of section 41 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has correctly applied the provisions of section 41 to withhold the information and she requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 41: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50676040

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602350

Derbyshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 4 Oct 2017

The complainant requested information from Derbyshire County Council (‘the council’) relating to a Flood Risk Assessment. The council provided information but the complainants disputed that the council had provided the information sought. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not in fact hold the information. He finds that the council breached regulation 14(2) and 14(3)(a) for not stating that it did not hold the information sought by relying on the exception under regulation 12(4)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). She does not require any steps to be taken.
EIR 5(1): Not upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld EIR 14(3)(a): Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50665386

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602271

Lambeth London Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant has requested information about a particular housing file. London Borough of Lambeth Council (LBL) has refused to comply with the request which it says is vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0682391

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602311

Devon County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant made three separate requests for copies of correspondence between the Department for Transport and Devon County Council (the council). The council responded that the information was not held. The complainant was not satisfied with the council’s response to two of the three requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the information is not held for those two requests. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50600906

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602272

Sheffield City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 4 Oct 2017

The complainant requested information from Sheffield City Council (the Council) relating to the location of trees that had been selected by a Council contractor for the implementation of flexible paving. The Council denied holding any relevant information. The Commissioner investigated the complainant’s appeal and found that the information was held on behalf of the Council by one of its contractors. The Council confirmed that its revised response was that the request was manifestly unreasonable as per regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The complainant confirmed he wished to appeal against this refusal of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council incorrectly refused the request as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the requested information.
EIR 12(4)(b): Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50637180

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602339

Warwick District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant has requested information on a proposed new road from Warwick District Council (the Council). The Council refused to provide the requested information citing the exception at regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged but, in the specific circumstances of this case, the public interest in disclosure of the requested information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner also finds that the Council did not make all information held falling within the scope of the request available to the complainant in response to his request. She also finds the Council in breach of regulation 11(4) as it did not provide the complainant with the outcome of its internal review within the 40 working day statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with an unredacted copy of the requested information. 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.
EIR 12(4)(d): Upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FER0641017

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602353

Cambridge City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 5 Oct 2017

The complainant has requested information which was supplied to Cambridge City Council’s Legal Team and which concerns the property where the complainant lives. The information relates to attempts made by the Council to resolve matters in respect of compliance with Building Regulations and possible proceedings under Section 36(6) of the Building Act 1984. The Council has confirmed that it holds 6 documents which fall within the scope of the complainant’s request. It has withheld 5 of these documents in reliance on section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA and 1 document in reliance on section 21. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridge City Council has correctly applied the exemptions provided by sections 31(1)(g) and 21 of the FOIA. It is therefore entitled to continue to withhold the documents which the complainant seeks.
FOI 31: Not upheld FOI 21: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50681829

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602254

Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 4 Oct 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to credit balances in respect of all ratepayers within the billing area of London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (‘the Council’). The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Not upheld

Citations:

[2017] UKICO FS50643256

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.602288

AAA and Another v CCC: CA 7 Jul 2020

Appeal by the defendant, CCC, against an order containing a final injunction restraining the defendant from publishing or disclosing to any other persons all or any part of the information contained in Confidential Schedule 1 to the order.

Judges:

Lord Justice Patten

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 846

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.652307

Stanley v London Borough of Tower Hamlets: QBD 26 Jun 2020

The Claimant sued the Council for breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, breach of the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Disclosure of medical records to attendees of child protection conference. Defendant’s application for relief – failure to Act for coronavirus crisis.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1622 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.652149

Kirkwood and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 11 Jul 2016

Legal Advice
On 7 October 2015, Mr Kirkwood asked the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for legal advice relating to an enforcement notice.
The Council withheld the information. Following a review, Mr Kirkwood remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council was correct to withhold the information as disclosure would be likely to substantially prejudice future enforcement action.

Citations:

[2016] ScotIC 153 – 2016

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.568217

Department of Health v Information Commissioner (Freedom of Information Act 2000): FTTGRC 15 Oct 2009

The Department had altered the way it reported the incidence of late abortions so as to protect the identities of those involved. It said that the numbers were so small that any detail could lead to identification.
Held: (1) The disputed information constituted personal data in the hands of the Department of Health.
(2) That the disclosure would not contravene the data protection principles, and consequently the Department of Health was wrong to rely on Section 40 of FOIA to withhold the disputed information.
(3) The Information Commissioner was right to find that disclosure would not be in breach of the Abortion Regulations, and therefore Section 44 of the FOIA was not engaged, and
(4) By failing to disclose the disputed information, the Department of Health had breached Section 1 of FOIA.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT EA – 2008 – 0074 (GRC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDepartment of Health, Regina (on The Application of) v Information Commissioner Admn 20-Apr-2011
The department appealed against an order requiring it to disclose statistical information about late abortions. The department argued that the numbers involved were such that the individual patients involved mighty be identified, and that therefore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.428743

Kerr and West Lothian Council: SIC 22 Aug 2019

The Council was asked about funding for child protection services. The Council replied that this information was on its website.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council failed to comply with the request. He did not agree that the information was available on its website.

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 126 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.645483

Manchester City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 28 Sep 2015

The complainant requested information from Manchester City Council (‘the council’) concerning plans for a new primary school on the site of a former university building in Didsbury. The council initially supplied a copy of one email and details of meetings falling within the scope of the requests. The complainant alleged that more information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council should have considered the requests under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). A small amount of additional information came to light during the Commissioner’s investigation and this has now been provided. The Commissioner accepts that on the balance of probabilities, the council has now provided all the information that it held however, he finds that the council breached its obligations under regulation 5(1) and 5(2) to respond within 20 working days and provide all the recorded information held. The Commissioner also found a breach of regulation 11(4) of the EIR for the failure to conduct an internal review within 40 working days. There are no steps to take.
EIR 5(1): Upheld EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 11(4): Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555821

Office of The First Minister and Deputy First Minister (Central Government) FS50587064: ICO 11 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to special advisers’ pay. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) has failed to respond to the request; therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that OFMDFM has failed to comply with section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority respond to the complainant’s request: Firstly, confirm or deny that the requested information is held (or, if the public authority decides to refuse to confirm or deny that any of the requested information is held, then a refusal notice should be issued that complies with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA which should include the outcome of any public interest considerations). Secondly, and subject to the above, if the information is held the public authority must either disclose the requested information or, if it wishes to withhold any information, issue a refusal notice in relation to the information it wishes to withhold (which should include the outcome of any public interest considerations) and disclose the remainder. 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50587064

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555743

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 18 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested information relating to Disability Employment Advisors (DEAs) from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The DWP denied holding any information relevant to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP has not responded to the complainant’s request of 25 November 2014. As the DWP has not issued a response directly to this request it has breached sections 1 and 10 of the Act. In relation to the requests of 20 September 2014 the Commissioner’s decision is that no relevant recorded information is held by the DWP. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a response to the complainant’s request of 25 November 2014. 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 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568924

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555709

Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50580163: ICO 5 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information about a legal declaration on a questionnaire. Avon and Somerset Constabulary (‘the Constabulary’) refused the request, relying on section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible to the applicant by other means). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary has incorrectly applied section 21 of the FOIA and that the correct response would have been to state that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 21: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50580163

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555685

Thames Valley Police (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50578306: ICO 6 Jul 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information concerning the use of RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) by Thames Valley Police (‘TVP’). TVP refused the request as being ‘vexatious’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not vexatious and he requires TVP to disclose the requested information or issue a fresh refusal notice in compliance with section 17 of FOIA. TVP 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

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50578306

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555663

Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50579646: ICO 5 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the injury on duty award review conducted by Avon and Somerset Constabulary (‘the Constabulary’). The Constabulary considered that the request was vexatious and relied on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was entitled to refuse to respond to the requests using section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Constabulary to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50579646

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555684

Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice) FS50580353: ICO 5 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant made a series of requests for information over a short period of time to Avon and Somerset Constabulary (‘the Constabulary’) about its injury on duty (‘IOD’) award review. The Constabulary considered that all the requests were vexatious and relied on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with them. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was entitled to refuse to comply with the requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Constabulary to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50580353

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555686

Beccles Town Council (Local Government (Town Council)): ICO 23 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested from Beccles Town Council a copy of legal advice concerning charitable land, a map, and a statutory declaration. The Commissioner’s decision is that Beccles Town Council has correctly applied the exemption for legal professional privilege at section 42 of the FOIA. He does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 42: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50557416

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555045

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 23 Jun 2015

The complainant has submitted three related requests for information to East Riding of Yorkshire Council (‘the Council’) about a planning matter. The Council refuses to comply on the basis that the requests are manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has responded correctly. The requests are manifestly unreasonable and the public interest does not favour disclosure.
EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0572510

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555478

Newcastle Under Lyme Council (Local Government (County Council)) FS50585863: ICO 8 Jul 2015

The complainant has requested information from Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council (the council) relating to a specified business premises. The council has responded to the request, but the complainant requested a decision notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with section 10 of the FOIA as the response was provided within 20 working days. As there has been no breach of the FOIA, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 10: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50585863

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555642

Thames Valley Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 7 Jul 2015

The complainant requested from Thames Valley Police (the police) a copy of a report by a named civilian investigator concerning events at a named college. The complainant made clear that, in making his request, he did not want to be provided with the names of abused minors. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the police are correct to say that they do not hold the requested information. He therefore did not uphold the complaint. The Commissioner does not require the police to take any further steps.

FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50575850

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555662

Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Education (University)): ICO 5 Feb 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the amount of money spent by the company McKinsey in the Children’s Division on the Vision 2Action project at the Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has incorrectly applied section 21 of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner has also found that the Trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because of the late response. The Commissioner requires the Trust to provide the requested information to the complainant.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 21: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50561958

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555060

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Central Government ): ICO 22 Apr 2015

The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (‘the FCO’) for correspondence between the FCO and a number of Tony Blair’s organisations. The FCO confirmed to the complainant that it holds information relevant to the request but it advised that further time was required to consider the public interest test. To date, the FCO has failed to provide the complainant with a substantive response. By failing to do so the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the FCO to provide the complainant with a substantive response to his information request. If the FCO decides to withhold any information then the complainant should be provided with a refusal notice giving a full explanation as to why the information will not be disclosed, including details of any public interest test considerations.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50571963

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555306

HM Treasury (Central Government): ICO 18 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant has requested information from HM Treasury (the Treasury) about Civil List payments to members of the Royal Family. The Treasury has refused the request relying on section 21 FOIA – information accessible to the applicant by other means. It did provide some information, outside of the FOIA in order to assist the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Treasury was entitled to rely on section 21 to refuse the request. No further steps are required.
FOI 21: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50580343

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555725

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (Central Government): ICO 11 Aug 2015

ICO The complainant requested from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) information about a call-off contract for theory testing. The DVSA initially refused to comply with the request as it considered it to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. Following its internal review, the DVSA withdrew its reliance on section 14(1) and said the requested information was exempt from disclosure under section 22 because it intended to publish the requested information in the future. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVSA incorrectly applied the exemption under section 22. However, the requested information was published during the Commissioner’s investigation and therefore, he does not require the DVSA to take any steps.
FOI 22: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50569707

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555714

London Fire Brigade (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 17 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested copies of all London Fire Brigade (‘LFB’)’s policies and procedures. Having initially incorrectly applied the cost limit LFB subsequently found the request to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so; he requires no steps.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50569583

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.555220

West Lancashire Borough Council (Undertakings): ICO 13 Jul 2012

An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by West Lancashire Borough Council. This follows the theft of a business continuity bag containing emergency response documents and personal data relating to 370 council employees.

Citations:

[2012] UKICO 2012-31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.529682

R v Scottish Prison Service: SIC 2 May 2014

Notes of meetings – On 4 July 2013 and 19 September 2013, Mr R asked the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) for notes taken at meetings held on those respective dates. In relation to the first request, the SPS advised Mr R to submit a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). The SPS failed to respond to the other request and, on review, stated that it was repeated.
During the investigation, as all the information had been made available to Mr R under the DPA, the SPS concluded that it was otherwise accessible to him and applied section 25(1) of FOISA. The Commissioner accepted this following her investigation.
The Commissioner identified failures in the time taken to respond to one request and its eventual rejection as repeated.

Citations:

[2014] ScotIC 095 – 2014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.525561

Wilson v City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 2 May 2014

SIC Installation of cavity wall insulation – On 20 October 2013, Ms Wilson asked the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for information relating to the proposed installation of cavity wall insulation at a specified address. The Council informed Ms Wilson that the request was manifestly unreasonable and the information was therefore excepted from disclosure in terms of regulation 10(4)(b) of the EIRs.
The Commissioner found that the Council had failed to deal with Ms Wilson’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs, by incorrectly withholding information under the exception in regulation 10(4)(b) of the EIRs. She required the Council to respond to Ms Wilson’s requirement for review otherwise than in terms of regulation 10(4)(b).

Citations:

[2014] ScotIC 096 – 2014

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information, Environment

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.525566

Morison v Moat: 1852

Affirmed

Citations:

(1852) 21 LJ Ch (NS) 248

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromMorison v Moat 20-Aug-1851
A servant, Moat, sought to use a secret formula of his employer’s. The plaintiff requested an injunction to restrain use of the formula.
Held: The Vice Chancellor reiterated the principles, as to which he said there was ‘no doubt’, adding: . .

Cited by:

CitedLord Ashburton v Pape CA 1913
Pape’s bankruptcy discharge was opposed by Lord Ashburton. He subpoenaed Brooks, a clerk to Lord Ashburton’s solicitor and obtained privileged letters written by Lord Ashburton to Mr Nocton, which Pape proposed to use. Pape and Brooks had colluded. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Information

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.270394

London Borough of Waltham Forest (Local Government) IC-44459: ICO 5 Feb 2021

The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) seeking information about previous FOI requests made to it about Ascham Homes. The Council responded to the request by directing the complainant to the What Do Know website and explained that it did not hold any further information about the previous requests. The complainant contacted the Commissioner about the Council’s handling of her request. Having considered this complaint the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 11 of FOIA by initially failing to provide the complainant with the requested information in hard copy.
FOI 11: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-44459

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.659773

London Borough of Waltham Forest (Local Government) IC-41941: ICO 5 Feb 2021

The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) which included a number of questions mainly focused on water collection arrangements. The Council provided the complainant with information in response to her request. The complainant questioned whether the Council had provided her with all of the information falling within the scope of her request and also raised a number of further concerns about the Council’s handling of her request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. However, she has also concluded that the Council breached section 11 of FOIA because it did not initially provide the complainant with a response in hard copy albeit it subsequently did so. Furthermore, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to two new requests for information which were included in the complainant’s request for an internal review.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld FOI 11: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-41941

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.659772

Leighton v The Information Commissioner (Information Rights): UTAA 4 Dec 2019

Information Rights – identifying decision under appeal; whether incumbent on judge to explain what she made of Appellant’s argument that his delay in appealing the decision of the Information Commissioner was due to his following her advice in her decision that he should pursue his request under the Data Protection Act and not the Freedom of Information Act; whether judge should have included this in the balance when considering whether to extend time for making appeal and to admit the appeal.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 378 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.651680

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 22 Nov 2019

The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (‘DfE’) regarding the trial of a reception baseline assessment in schools. The DfE refused to provide some of the requested information citing section 35(1)(a) – the formulation and development of government policy and section 40(2) – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly withheld the requested information under section 35(1) and section 40(2). However, she finds that the DfE did not comply with section 10(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any further steps.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 35(1)(a): Complaint not upheld FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld FOI 10(1): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50850372

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.650287

London Borough of Enfield (Local Government): ICO 18 Dec 2019

The applicant has requested information relating to a major programme of works on a block of flats. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Enfield (the Council) was entitled to aggregate all six requests in accordance with section 12(4) of FOIA. However, it has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the application of section 12(1). The Commissioner also finds that the Council incorrectly cited section 14(1) of the FOIA in response to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response without relying on either of the previously cited exemptions. 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: Complaint upheld FOI 12: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50828864

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.650440

Kerr and West Lothian Council: SIC 23 Aug 2019

The Council was asked various questions about detriment caused to children by social workers and about the recourse available to those children.
One question asked how many children had disclosed any form of detriment to social workers. The Council said that it would exceed the cost threshold of FOISA to supply information for part of the request. Following an investigation, the Commissioner agreed that responding to this question would exceed pounds 600, but found that the Council had failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance.
He also found that the Council failed to address another question, but required no action as a response was provided during the investigation.

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 127 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.645484

Kerr and Dumfries and Galloway Health Board: SIC 19 Aug 2019

NHS Dumfries and Galloway was asked whether it held letters containing ‘threatening language’ from a named individual. NHS Dumfries and Galloway confirmed that correspondence was held.
During the investigation, NHS Dumfries and Galloway issued a further response.
The Commissioner investigated and found that NHS Dumfries and Galloway had failed to comply with FOISA in responding to the request. This was because the initial response did not confirm whether the correspondence was from the named individual. As a further response was issued during the investigation, the Commissioner did not require any further action to be taken.

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 123 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.645470

Kirby Muxloe Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 24 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested copies of papers distributed to councillors in preparation for a particular trustee and parish council meeting. Kirby Muxloe Parish Council agreed to provide the majority of the papers but withheld some items of correspondence on the basis of section 21, draft minutes and policies under section 22 and a legal advice email on the basis of regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘EIR’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the exemptions and exceptions and the information should be withheld. He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 21: Not upheld FOI 22: Not upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50569110

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555506

Mid and East Antrim Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 18 Jul 2018

The complainant requested information about a Public Rights of Way investigation. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council (‘the Council’) provided some information but withheld other information under section 31 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been handled under the EIR. The Commissioner has found that some of the withheld information constitutes the complainant’s own personal data and therefore exempt under regulation 5(3) of the EIR, the Council correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) to other information and the Council correctly withheld some information under regulation 13 whilst having misapplied it to other information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the documents withheld under regulation 13, with the exception of any third party personal data relating to members of the public or junior officials contained within them.
EIR 12(4)(d): Complaint not upheld EIR 13: Complaint partly upheld EIR 5: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50688082

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.621344

Lanteglos By Fowey Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)) FS50566913: ICO 11 Mar 2015

The complainant requested information from Lanteglos by Fowey Parish Council (‘the parish council’). He asked for copies of documents sent by the parish council to Cornwall Council that had resulted in a particular email being sent to him. The parish council initially refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held. It subsequently relied on the exemption under section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’). This exemption relates to legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that some information was correctly withheld using section 42(1). The remaining information is the complainant’s own personal data and is therefore exempt under section 40(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner found breaches of section 1(1)(a), 10(1), 17(1) and 17(1)(a)(b) and (c). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 40: Not upheld FOI 42: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566913

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555218

Ashfield District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 24 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information on the costs paid to third party building company which did work on his house on behalf of the council. The council has applied section 43(2) to the information (commercial interests). When it provided its arguments to the Commissioner it also sought to rely upon section 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 43(2) to the information. He has therefore not considered the application of section 41 further. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 43: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50570261

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555435

Edge Hill University (Education (University)): ICO 1 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested from Edge Hill University (‘the University’) a broad scope of information relating to the academic years 2000-2001 to 2012-2013. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 14 of FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50570631

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555479

Financial Ombudsman Service (Local Government (Other)): ICO 24 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to complaints/grievances about four managers at FOS. FOS refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that FOS was correct to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50578600

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555480

Welsh Government (Central Government): ICO 18 Jul 2018

The complainant requested a copy of a review undertaken into Sport Wales. The Welsh Government provided a copy of the review in question and confirmed that some information had been withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Welsh Government also sought to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2). She does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50695084

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.621392

Northamptonshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 24 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested recorded information relating to Northamptonshire County Council’s LGSS shared services organisation. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council does not hold recorded information which is relevant to questions 2 – 6 of the complainant’s request. The complainant also seeks five invoices for goods and services provided to the Council by LGSS and which the Council has withheld in reliance of section 43(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is properly engaged and therefore he requires the Council to take the following action to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council is required to disclose the five invoices referred to in the complainant’s request.
FOI 43: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50573003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555519

South Gloucestershire Council (Local Government): ICO 18 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to a proposed development. South Gloucestershire Council disclosed some information and withheld the reminder, citing regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Gloucestershire Council has cited regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR appropriately. However, she considers that SGC has breached regulations 5(2) (time for compliance) and 14(3) (refusal to disclose information) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require South Gloucestershire Council to take any steps following this decision notice.
EIR 12(4)(d): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld EIR 14(3): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fer0715540

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.621377

Care Quality Commission (Health (Other)): ICO 17 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information on the legal qualifications of certain legal advisers at the Care Quality Commission (‘CQC’). The CQC refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC has correctly applied the provisions of section 14(1) to refuse the request. He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50576984

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555453

Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Health (NHS)): ICO 18 Jun 2015

The complainant made a freedom of information request to Kingston Hospital NHS foundation Trust for all documents submitted by the winning bidder in a tender for outpatient pharmacy, retail and Homecare services at the Trust. The Trust refused the request under the exemption in section 40(2) (personal information), section 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that both the section 41 and section 43(2) exemptions are engaged and in the case of section 43(2), the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 41: Not upheld FOI 43: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50567022

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.555505

ERY v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 4 Nov 2016

The anonymised claimant sought an order restraining the defendant and its newspapers publishing material about him which he said was confidential.
Held: Nicol J said that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information that a person was being investigated by the police, but he did so on the back of a concession that the fact that that person had been interviewed under caution attracted a reasonable expectation

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2760 (QB), [2017] EMLR 9

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCXZ v ZXC QBD 26-Jun-2020
Malicious Prosecution needs court involvement
W had made false allegations against her husband of child sex abuse to police. He sued in malicious prosecution. She applied to strike out, and he replied saying that as a developing area of law a strike out was inappropriate.
Held: The claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.570915