Local government (City council)
The complainant has requested information regarding private landlords found guilty of offences under the Housing Act 2004. Stoke on Trent City Council relied on section 40(2) (personal data) to withhold individuals’ names and particular property addresses though it did release anonymised data. The Commissioner’s decision is that Stoke on Trent City Council correctly relied on section 40(2) to withhold the said information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50535364
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555146

ICO Local government (County council)
The complainant has requested information relating to statutory notices issued under the Highways Act 1980. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norfolk County Council has correctly applied the exception for manifestly unreasonable requests at Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0561174
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555132

ICO Local government (District council)
The complainant has asked South Gloucestershire Council to provide him with the names and contact details of the Management Committee and/or Trustees of a named football club. The Council has relied on the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) has been properly applied and the Council is entitled to rely on its provisions to withhold the information which the complainant seeks. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action in respect of this matter.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50562260
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555143

ICO Local government (District council)
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (‘the Council’) relating to the grounds on which five applicants were placed above her for a property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50557032
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555150

ICO Education (Other)
The complainant has requested information relating to the recovery of costs of repair work on private land. Northern Ireland Water refused the request on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b) as it said the request was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northern Ireland Water was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b). No steps are required.
EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0548545
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555133

ICO Education (Other)
The complainant has requested the name, contact details, qualifications, experience and publication record of the four GP expert witnesses who advised on his case. The PHSO has provided the complainant with some information but has refused to provide some of the requested information under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO was correct to apply section 40(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50553963
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555140

ICO Local government (District council)
The complainant has asked South Gloucestershire Council to provide him with the names and contact details of the Management Committee and/or Trustees of a named football club. The Council has relied on the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) has been properly applied and the Council is entitled to rely on its provisions to withhold the information which the complainant seeks. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action in respect of this matter.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50563513
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555144

ICO Local government (District council)
The complainant requested unredacted copies of objection letters against a planning application that he submitted to the public authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information redacted from the objection letters on the basis of the exception at regulation 12(3) of the EIR. No steps required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0069 dismissed.
EIR 12(3): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50559952
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555145

ICO Local government (District council)
The complainant has requested diverse information about historical and contemporary land development within Suffolk Coastal District Council’s locality. Suffolk Coastal District Council, where it holds the requested information, relied on section 43 to withhold it from the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Suffolk Coastal District Council correctly relied on section 43, as aforesaid, and also accepts its position where it said it did not hold requested information.
FOI 43: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50534430
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555147

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for a copy of all of the documents it provided to the ‘Detainee Inquiry’. The FCO argued that the request was vexatious because complying with it would place a grossly oppressive burden on it. It therefore refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that the FCO is entitled to refuse the request on this basis.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50561528
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555090

Local government (City council)
The complainant has requested recorded information relating to the sale of two parcels of land at the St John’s Lane Business Car Park Canterbury. The Commissioner’s decision is that Canterbury City Council is entitled to withhold the information which the complainant seeks in reliance on Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action in this matter.
EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50557720
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.555058

ICO Central government
The complainant has requested information generated by a high profile criminal trial. Where it holds requested information, the Government Legal Department (GLD) relies on sections 42 (legal professional privilege) and 32 (court records) to withhold it from the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that GLD’s reliance on the aforesaid sections was correct.
FOI 32: Not upheld FOI 42: Not uphel

[2015] UKICO FS50574924
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554740

The complainant has requested records relating to a complaint he has against Torbay Hospital, now called Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) following reorganisation. The Trust is withholding the information that it holds because it says it is exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of the FOIA (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 42(1) to the information it is withholding and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He does not require the Trust to take any steps.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50586696
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554750

ICO The complainant requested from the London Borough of Southwark (‘the Council’) details of the hourly rates it paid to its existing homecare providers. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing the exemption in section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 43(2) to the withheld information and so he does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 43: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50591410
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554748

ICO The complainant requested information about the sale of public open space land and the proposed refurbishment and extension to Walkden Cricket Club. Salford City Council (the ‘Council’) failed to provide a response to either request until six months after receipt. Having initially decided to withhold all the information in scope of the request, the Council then revised its position and made a number of disclosures, with some of the information redacted under regulations 12(4)(e), internal communications, 12(5)(b), course of justice, 12(5)(e), commercial confidentiality, 12(5)(f), adverse effect on the person who provided the information, and 13(2), personal data. During the investigation, the Council discovered additional information in scope of the request which it subsequently disclosed to the complainant, with redactions, as set out in paragraphs 19 and 20 of this notice. It also withheld some information in its entirety relying on the above exceptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exceptions in regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b) and 13(2) are only engaged in relation to some of the withheld information. He also finds that regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) are not engaged in relation to any of the withheld information. The Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide the requested information within 20 working days, and regulation 14(2) by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. It also breached regulation 11 by failing to carry out an internal review until requested to do so by the Commissioner. The Commissioner requires the public authority to comply with the order to issue a fresh response/disclose the information in relation to the documents in Batches 1, 2, 3 and 4 listed in Annex A of this notice. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 5.2: Upheld EIR 11: Upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld EIR 12.4.e: Not upheld EIR 12.5.b: Not upheld EIR 12.5.e: Upheld EIR 12.5.f: Upheld EIR 13(2): Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50565225
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554747

ICO The complainant requested information regarding the definition of various conceptual terms in relation to the study of psychology. The University of Cambridge (the University) applied section 12(1) and 14(1) of the FOIA in refusing the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to rely on section 14(1) in refusing the request. However he finds that the University did breach section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50572218
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554751

ICO The complainant has requested details of deceased people who have had a public health funeral. The Commissioner’s decision is that Luton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Trust has correctly applied the law enforcement exemption at section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA. He does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50584673
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554746

ICO The complainant requested from Surrey Police (the police) information about the movements of a police helicopter which had searched for a missing person over an area including that in which the complainant lives. The police provided him with information about that flight but the complainant was not satisfied that there had not been a further reason for the search by the helicopter beyond that stated by the police. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the police are correct to say that they do not hold information about any other reason for the helicopter search. He therefore did not uphold the complaint. The Commissioner does not require the police to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50599309
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554749

Local government (Other)
The complainant requested copies of communications between the Treasury Select Committee, Financial Services Authority (as it then was), Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority relating to a report into the failure of Halifax Bank of Scotland Plc. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request in reliance on the exemption at section 34(1) FOIA (Parliamentary privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 34(1). No steps are required.
FOI 34: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583588
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554738

ICO The complainant has requested the college to disclose which hours there is at least one member of staff on duty at the Hammersmith animal research facility. The college responded refusing to disclose the requested information under section 38 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the college applied section 38 of the FOIA correctly in this case and the public interest in favour of disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 38: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583261
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554745

ICO The complainant has requested details of deceased people who have had a public health funeral. The Commissioner’s decision is that Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has correctly applied the law enforcement exemption at section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA. He does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50584848
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554741

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the estates realignment of the University of South Wales (‘the University’). The University stated that some information could be viewed in situ and other information was exempt under sections 22 and 43. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the University withdrew reliance on section 22 and disclosed some relevant information. However, the University stated that it considered sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) and 43 to apply to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly withheld some information under section 36(2)(b). However, he also finds that, whilst section 36(2)(c) was engaged, the public interest in maintaining this exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that the University breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) in failing to disclose information relevant to the request and failing to issue a refusal notice within the required timescales. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information which has been withheld under section 36(2)(c) alone, namely the minutes of the Board of Governors’ meeting on 8 September 2014 and the confidential appendix to the minutes of the Board of Governors’ meeting on 7 July 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 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 36: Partly upheld FOI 43: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50577839
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554752

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for the names and direct telephone numbers of managers and team leaders within the Benefits and Credit team. The public authority withheld the information in reliance on the exemptions at sections 31(1)(g) (by extension, section 31(2)(a)) and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information described as ‘the disputed information’ in the body of this notice in reliance on section 31(1)(g) and section 31(2)(a) by extension. He however finds the public authority in breach of section 10(1) FOIA for failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. No steps required.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 31: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50581518
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554742

ICO The complainant has requested from London Borough of Hounslow (‘the Council’) a copy of a Building Regulations application in respect of a specific property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to either provide the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice within the 20 working day statutory time limit as set out in regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a response under the EIR. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 5.1: Upheld EIR 5.2: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0586563
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554744

ICO Local government (Parish council)
The complainant requested information from Four Marks Parish Council (‘the council’) relating to a reference in council minutes to a legal report on a particular area of land. The council said that the information was excepted under regulation 12(5)(b) and regulation 12(4)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’) and the public interest did not favour disclosure. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the complainant alleged that the council had not correctly interpreted his request. The council reconsidered the request and identified further information within scope. It withheld some of this information using the exceptions under regulation 12(5)(b) and 12(4)(e) but said that some information was not excepted in its entirety. The Commissioner’s decision is that information was correctly withheld using regulation 12(5)(b) and 12(4)(e) and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner has ordered the disclosure of the information for which no exception was claimed. He has found procedural breaches of regulations 5(1), 5(2), 14(1) and 14(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant a copy of the letter from the solicitors dated 24 February 2015 and the enclosed invoice dated 18 February 2015 except that the council should redact the information contained within both documents that reveals what it sought legal advice about. 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 5(1): Upheld EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 14(1): Upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0584301
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554739

ICO Central government
The complainant has requested information concerning inspection policies and training held by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (‘APHA’). He has also requested information concerning a Moderation Panel hearing which considered his complaint made to APHA. The request was made as part of a subject access request (‘SAR’). APHA provided a response under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘DPA’) and then, following the Commissioner’s intervention, later responded to the outstanding FOIA elements of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that APHA has provided the information it holds in response to this FOIA request. However as the FOIA response was not provided within the time for compliance, APHA has breached section 10(1). The Commissioner has also considered any personal data which was included in the FOIA request and is satisfied that this was addressed in the SAR response. There are no further steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50594511
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554729

ICO Local government (District council)
The complainant has requested recorded information concerning the number of occasions where members of school staff have been reported to Bradford Metropolitan District Council in respect of firearm incidents. The Commissioner has determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information which the complainant seeks, other than the single incident which was brought to its attention by the ATL union. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50586478
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554733

ICO Health (NHS)
The complainant has requested information about two ‘clusters’ of deaths referred to in a particular Care Quality Commission report. Camden and Islington Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) has refused to disclose the information, which it says is exempt under sections 40(2) (third person personal information) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that Camden and Islington Foundation Trust has breached section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA because it did not initially identify all the information that it holds that falls within the scope of the request. It therefore did not provide the complainant with a full response within 20 working days. The Commissioner has decided that the Trust correctly applied the exemption at section 41(1) of the FOIA to the majority of the requested information that it has now identified that it holds, and that the inherent public interest favours protecting the confidence. However, he considers that one element is not exempt under section 41(1) or section 40(2) and he requires the Trust to take the following step: Release the ‘Cluster Review Summary Analysis’ report to the complainant, having removed from it the information relating to serious injuries, which was not requested by the complainant. The public authority must take this step 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 FOI 40: Upheld FOI 41: Partly upheld

Decision notice FS50585579

[2015] UKICO FS50585579
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554735

ICO Health (NHS)
The complainant has requested information relating to a particular recruitment process undertaken by the Trust. The Trust said that some of the requested information was in the public domain, it said that some information was exempt under section 40(1) FOIA and some was exempt under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40(1) and 40(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not consider that the Trust has made it clear as to whether or not the information which the Trust said was in the public domain is still in the public domain. It has not provided any links to this information or explained where it can be accessed. As no exemptions have been applied to this information, the Commissioner considers that it should be provided to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the Trust to provide the complainant with a copy of the advertisement, job description and person specification to the complainant which it has said was in the public domain. 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 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50595553
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554732

ICO The complainant requested information about complaints made against particular members of staff at The Oldham Academy North (TOAN). E-ACT determined that the request for information was vexatious in accordance with section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that E-ACT is entitled to rely on section 14(1) in refusing this request. He does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
FOI 14 : Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50575948
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554737

ICO Central government
The complainant requested copies of communications between the Treasury Select Committee, Financial Services Authority (as it then was), Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority relating to a report into the failure of Halifax Bank of Scotland Plc. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request in reliance on the exemption at section 34(1) FOIA (Parliamentary privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 34(1). No steps are required.
FOI 34: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583586
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554730

ICO Local government (District council)
The complainant has requested information relating to a property plan. Bolsover District Council disclosed some information and confirmed that no further relevant information was held. The complainant has disputed this. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bolsover District Council has disclosed all the information relevant to the request that it holds and complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 5(1): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0587162
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554728

ICO Local government (City council)
The complainant requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council (‘the council’) relating to its contract for bus shelter advertising. The council supplied some information but refused other information using the exemption under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’). This exemption concerns commercial interests. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council said that it wished to change its position. It said that in relation to one of the requests it could neither confirm nor deny whether the information was held in accordance with section 43(3) because to do so would be likely to cause prejudice to commercial interests. In relation to the remaining information, the council wished to rely on the additional exemptions under section 41(1) and 44(1) as well as section 43(2). These exemptions concern confidential information and circumstances where the disclosure is prohibited under law. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council incorrectly claimed that it cannot confirm or deny whether the information was held relating to one of the requests. The Commissioner was not persuaded that any of the exemptions relied upon were engaged in the circumstances of this case. He has ordered the council to confirm or deny whether the information was held in relation to one of the requests, and to disclose it if it was. He has also ordered the disclosure of the other information held. This decision notice includes a confidential annex. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. In relation to the requests, ‘What are the financial benefits to the Council annually and over the life of the contract’ and Are these payments made on a regular basis and if so when’, the council should disclose the information it held to the complainant. In relation to the request, ‘Does the council receive any discounts on advertising it purchases and if so what percentage’, the council should confirm or deny whether the information was held and if it was held, it should disclose it 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 41: Upheld FOI 43: Upheld FOI 44: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50588962
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554734

ICO The complainant requested information about the processes around the application for a Radio 4 charity appeal. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593274
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554731

ICO Central government
The complainant has requested information about incidents on the road involving mobility scooters. The Department for Transport (DfT) released some information and says it does not hold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has released all the information that it holds that falls within the scope of the request and has met its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. He does not require the DfT to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585636
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554736

[2015] UKICO FS50546439
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554708

ICO Local Government (Borough Council)
The complainant requested various items of information from Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (‘the Council’), in respect of a feasibility study in relation to traffic controls outside the front of her property. Although she did not initially receive a response, following the Commissioner’s intervention the Council subsequently provided its response. The Commissioner’s decision is that in providing its response after the required 20 working days, the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. As a response has now been provided the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 5: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50538340
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554723

ICO The complainant has requested the names of employees who authorised invoices in relation to certain contracts as well as details of the development work undertaken. Wirral Borough Council refused to disclose the identities of the individuals on the basis of section 40(2) but provided a description of the development work that had been done. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) has been correctly applied to refuse to identify the employees who authorised the invoices and the description provided was sufficient to satisfy the request. He does not require the Council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50549553
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554727

ICO Central government
The complainant has requested information with regards to the Planning Inspectorates Exceptional Achievement Scheme (EAS). The Planning Inspectorate initially responded refusing the request under section 40 of the FOIA. Following an internal review, it advised that it did not hold information to some of the request, some information was already available and the remaining was being withheld under section 40 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigations, the Planning Inspectorate confirmed it was relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information it has. The complainant was not satisfied with the Planning Inspectorate withholding the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Planning Inspectorate was correct to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information it has. The Commissioner does not require the Planning Inspectorate to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50555369
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554720

ICO Local government (Borough council)
The complainant has requested from Newham Council the total amount it has deducted from its elected councillors’ basic and where applicable special responsibility allowances and passed to funds/accounts controlled by the mayor, the Labour Group or the Labour Party between 6 April 2010 and 5 April 2014. Newham Council has withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA on the basis that it is personal data the disclosure of which would be unlawful and unfair under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner’s decision is that Newham Council has failed to engage section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Newham Council to disclose the information withheld under section 40(2). 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 40: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50559488
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554718

ICO Local government (Parish council)
The complainant requested details of complaints made about a resident. Platt Parish Council (the ‘Council’) responded and advised that it did not hold any paper copies of the complaints. The Commissioner has considered whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information. He does not require the Council to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50558324
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554721

ICO Local government (Town council)
The complainant submitted a request to Sandy Town Council (the Council) about its decision to replace the lease agreement it had with Sandy Cricket Club with a licence. The Council provided the complainant with the information he requested with the exception of correspondence it had exchanged with its lawyers about this matter. The Council initially sought to withhold this information on the basis of section 41 (information provided in confidence) of FOIA but subsequently sought instead to rely on the exemption contained at section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 42 and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50550704
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554724

ICO Local government (County council)
The complainant has requested records held by the council about his father whilst in care in a private nursing home and any details it holds about him. The council applied section 14(1) and 14(2) (vexatious and repeated requests). It said that the complainant had made a number of similar requests and complaints to the council, and a number of complaints about the council’s actions to other authorities previously on a matter that had been fully investigated and closed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has applied section 14(1) of the FOIA correctly. He has not therefore considered the application of 14(2) by the council further, He has decided however that the council breached section 10(1) in that it did not respond to the requests within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50544138
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554707

Local government (Town council)
The complainant has requested a copy of a report which was provided to Hungerford Town Council (‘the Council’) by Ashburn Planning. The Council refused to disclose the report in reliance of the exception to disclosure provided by Regulation 12(5)(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has properly applied Regulation 12(5)(d) to the report and is therefore entitled to withhold it from the complainant. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken by the public authority. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0029 dismissed.
EIR 12.5.d: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50560611
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554706

ICO Local government (County council)
The complainant requested information about amendments made to the minutes of a particular meeting of the Radnorshire Committee. Powys County Council (‘the Council’) provided the information requested, subject to some personal data being redacted under section 40(2). During its internal review, the Council disclosed some of the information it had originally redacted but maintained that the remaining personal data contained within the documents disclosed was exempt under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold/ redact the remaining information held relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50550521
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554722

ICO Local government (County council)
The complainant submitted a request to Shropshire Council (the Council) seeking a copy of its legal advice regarding roads closures for carnivals and fairs. It sought to withhold this information under regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(5)(b). However he has concluded that the Council breached regulation 11(4) by failing to complete the internal review within 40 working days.
EIR 11: Upheld EIR 12.5.b: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50554887
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554725

ICO Central government
The complainant has requested information relating to Home Office officials who have been dismissed for inappropriate use of files. The Home Office (HO) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the HO breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner requires the HO to respond to the request in accordance with section 1 of the Act or issue a valid refusal notice
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50561255
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554704

Central government
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of the information held by the MOD Police concerning its investigation into particular allegations raised by him. The MOD sought to withhold all of the requested information on the basis of sections 30(1)(a)(i) and 30(2)(a)(i) of FOIA and also sought to argue that parts of the information also attracted the exemptions contained at sections 40(2), 40(1), 43(2) and 21(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that all of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 30(1)(a)(i) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 30: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50553030
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554712

ICO Central government
The complainant requested information relating to the competition to select the providers of a new electronic monitoring service in England and Wales. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) failed to respond within the 20 working day limit thereby breaching section 10 of the FOIA. As the MoJ has now responded, the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50558530
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554714

ICO Local government (District council)
The complainant has requested all information held by Mid Sussex District Council (the council) relating to a specific property between 1 January 2010 to 8 May 2014. The council provided its response but the complainant was concerned that more information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to provide the complainant with all the information it held within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with copies of the additional information that has been located during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation.
EIR 5: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0553236
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554711

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation by the Electoral Commission (EC) from 2010 into donations made by Bearwood Corporate Services (Bearwood) to the Conservative Party. That investigation examined whether the donations were within the rules set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA). The EC refused the request citing the exemptions provided by section 30(1) – investigations and proceedings, section 31(1)(g) – law enforcement, section 40(2) – personal information, section 41 – information provided in confidence and section 42 – legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EC correctly withheld all the information falling within the scope of the request under section 30(1). He has therefore not gone onto to consider the application of the other exemptions. The EC is not required to take any further action in this matter.
FOI 30: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50556310
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554700

[2015] UKICO FER0555744
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554698

ICO Education (Other)
The complainant requested information from Ascham Homes on 17 October 2013. The information sought by the complainant relates to a previous case considered by the Information Commissioner under reference FS50477493 and concerns work carried out at the complainant’s home by a third party contractor – Breyer Group plc. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ascham Homes has contravened section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the twenty day compliance period.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50539497
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554691

ICO Central government
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to the extension of the TaxSmart scheme to include rail travel in Northern Ireland. The Department of Finance and Personnel has failed to respond to the request. At the time of issuing this decision notice the Department had not provided the complainant with a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is therefore that the public authority has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner requires the public authority provide the complainant with a substantive response to his information request. If the public authority decides to refuse to confirm or deny that the requested information is held, or to withhold any information, then a refusal notice should be issued that complies with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50561462
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554699

ICO Local government (Town council)
The complainant has requested a copy of legal advice concerning the Beccles Fen. 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.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50556645
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554693

Dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 2015 – 0134 (GRC)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554516

Part Allowed

[2015] UKFTT 2015 – 0005 (GRC)
Bailii

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554517

Dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 2015 – 0128 (GRC)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554515

Dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 2015 – 0088 (GRC)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554514

Absolute Exemptions – Information accessible by other means s.21

[2015] UKFTT 2015 – 0109 (GRC)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554518

Allegations and evidence relating to complaint

[2012] ScotIC 143 – 2012)
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.466877

Dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 2015 – 0087 (GRC)
Bailii
Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554509

[2015] UKFTT 2014 – 0308 (GRC)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 200

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554510

Dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 2015 – 0099 (GRC)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554511

Dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 2015 – 0104 (GRC)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554513

[2015] UKFTT 2015 – 0125 (GRC)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554512

SIC Heating Upgrade Contracts – On 18 August 2015, Company Y asked Highland Council (the Council) for information in connection with Company Y’s involvement with a heating upgrade contract.
The Council provided Company Y with some information. Company Y did not believe it had been provided with all the information requested and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had partially failed to respond to Company Y’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs, as it had not provided Company Y with all the relevant information it held. Although, by the close of the investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that the Council had provided all further information held, she identified deficiencies in the Council’s handling of Company Y’s request.

[2015] ScotIC 156 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554154