Category: Information

Duff and Scottish Ministers: SIC 13 Oct 2015

SIC Changes To Legal Procedure – On 18 February 2015, Mr Duff asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for any new legislation which changed the procedure to allow a debate to be fixed in the legal proceedings known as Lawburrows.
The Ministers told Mr Duff they did not hold any information about this, and explained why.
Following a review, Mr Duff remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that the Ministers did not hold the information Mr Duff asked for.

[2015] ScotIC 160 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554156

Arndt and Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Scotland: SIC 9 Oct 2015

SIC Minutes of The General Assembly/Bureau of The International Commission On Civil Status – On 10 February 2015, Mr Arndt asked the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Scotland (the Registrar) for the minutes of the meetings of the General Assembly and Bureau of the International Commission on Civil Status (ICCS), held in Strasbourg on 28-31 March 2006.
The Registrar initially told Mr Arndt that he did not hold the minutes of the meetings for the purposes of FOISA. Following a review, where the Registrar acknowledged that he held the information, but chose to withhold it under FOISA, Mr Arndt remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the minutes of the meetings were exempt from disclosure as they comprised confidential information obtained from an international organisation.

[2015] ScotIC 157 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554158

Q and Aberdeen City Council (Building Warrants): SIC 2 Oct 2015

Building warrants – On 25 September 2014, Q asked Aberdeen City Council (the Council) whether there had been any building warrants applied for or granted for a named property since 1994.
The Council informed Q that it would cost andpound;70 to provide this information, the standard fee for its Property History search service.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had failed to respond to Q’s request for information in accordance with FOISA and the EIRs. The Council was not entitled to charge for a search service under its publication scheme, as it claimed. The Council also failed to issue a refusal notice which complied with regulation 13 of the EIRs. She required the Council to issue a revised response to Q’s requirement for review

[2015] ScotIC 153 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554163

Friends of Loch Etive and Argyll and Bute Council: SIC 14 Oct 2015

SIC Section 75 Agreement – On 30 January 2014, Friends of Loch Etive (FLE) asked Argyll and Bute Council (the Council) for correspondence and other information relating to a proposed section 75 planning agreement. The Council’s response was appealed to the Commissioner and resulted in Decision 242/2014.
On 24 November 2014, FLE made a further request, asking again for correspondence and other information relating to the agreement, plus all information relating to the section 75 agreement, covering the period 30 January 2014 to the date of completion of the agreement and a copy of a plan. The request acknowledged that circumstances had changed since the previous request: a judicial review, previously only threatened, was underway at the time.
The Council responded under the EIRs, supplying a copy of the plan but withholding the remainder of the information under regulations 10(4)(e) and 10(5)(e) of the EIRs. Following a review, FLE remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council responded to FLE’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs.

[2015] ScotIC 159 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554155

Mr P and Borders Health Board: SIC 21 Oct 2015

Personal data – On 23 February 2015, Mr P asked Borders Health Board (NHS Borders) for information relating to his treatment.
NHS Borders provided Mr P with some information, informing him that other information had been routinely destroyed. NHS Borders withheld some information, either because it believed it to be legally privileged or because it was Mr P’s own personal data. It explained that the personal data could be requested under the DPA. Following a review, Mr P remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, NHS Borders recognised that the information requested was Mr P’s personal data and therefore exempt from disclosure under FOISA. It also acknowledged that some of the withheld information did not actually fall within the scope of Mr P’s request.
The Commissioner was satisfied that this approach was appropriate in the circumstances. She found that NHS Borders should have considered the scope of the request more carefully before responding to Mr P and (with a view to providing Mr P with reasonable, relevant advice and assistance) considered more carefully the implications of the information being his personal data.
Given NHS Borders’ responses during the investigation, she did not require it to take any action in this case.

[2015] ScotIC 163 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554159

Ellison and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 13 Oct 2015

Rendition Flights – On 17 March 2015, Mr Ellison asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for a copy of the interim report to the Lord Advocate regarding his investigation of alleged rendition flights passing through Scottish airports.
Police Scotland responded by stating that the report was exempt from disclosure under a number of exemptions in FOISA. Following a review, Mr Ellison remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that Police Scotland were entitled to refuse to disclose the interim report.

[2015] ScotIC 158 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554157

Morrison and Crofting Commission: SIC 24 Sep 2015

SIC Discussions With Solicitors – On 21 February 2015, Mr Morrison asked the Crofting Commission for information relating to discussions between the Crofting Commission and its solicitors, and the Crofting Commission’s solicitors and Government solicitors, in relation to section 22 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993.
The Crofting Commission withheld the information on the basis that it was subject to legal professional privilege. Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted that the Crofting Commission was entitled to withhold the information on this basis.

[2015] ScotIC 150 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554147

Mr B and Lothian Health Board (: SIC 30 Sep 2015

SIC Specialist Assessment – On 21 January 2015, Mr Basked Lothian Health Board (NHS Lothian) for information relating to a named doctor, in the context of a particular specialist assessment.
NHS Lothian refused to provide the information, claiming it was personal data. Following a review, Mr B remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that NHS Lothian had properly responded to Mr B’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. She was satisfied that the information was personal data, which NHS Lothian was entitled to withhold under section 38(1)(a) and (b) of FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 152 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554148

Mr X and South Lanarkshire Council: SIC 22 Sep 2015

SIC Disturbances at a Specified Property – On 13 April 2015, Mr X asked South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) for information about disturbances at a specified property. The Council responded by refusing to confirm or deny whether it held any information. Following a review, Mr X remained dissatisfied and applied to the
Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had properly responded to Mr X’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. This was because she found that the Council was entitled neither to confirm nor deny whether it held information which would address Mr X’s request. She did not require the Council to take any action.

[2015] ScotIC 147 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554151

Firm A and Transport Scotland: SIC 23 Sep 2015

SIC Memorandum of Understanding With DFDS and Forth Ports – On 6 November 2015, Firm A asked Transport Scotland for a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered into by the First Minister with the ferry company DFDS and Forth Ports in relation to the Rosyth/Zeebrugge ferry service.
Transport Scotland provided a redacted version of the MoU. Following a review, Firm A remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision. Further information from the MoU was disclosed during the investigation.
The Commissioner investigated and found that Transport Scotland had responded to Firm A’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. The Commissioner accepted that disclosing the remaining information would be likely to prejudice substantially the commercial interests of those private entities who were parties to the MoU. She also concluded, on balance, that the public interest in disclosure was outweighed by that of maintaining the exemption.

[2015] ScotIC 149 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554146

Applicant A and Office of The Scottish Charity Regulator: SIC 20 Oct 2015

SIC Number of Complaints Made Concerning A Specified Address – On 26 July 2015, Applicant A asked the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) for the number of referrals or complaints made by Police Scotland or other bodies to OSCR concerning charity events at a specified address.
OSCR informed Applicant A that it did not hold the requested information.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner upheld OSCR’s response.

[2015] ScotIC 161 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554153

Cavan and West Lothian Council: SIC 29 Sep 2015

Correspondence With Queen’s Counsel – On 14 April 2015, Mr Cavan asked West Lothian Council (the Council) for information provided to Queens Counsel and advice received in relation to a specific housing estate.
The Council withheld the information as it was subject to legal professional privilege. Following investigation, the Commissioner accepted this.

[2015] ScotIC 151 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554150

Wright and East Dunbartonshire Council: SIC 18 Sep 2015

SIC Inspection and Maintenance Records for A Specified Street: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales – On 4 June 2015, Watermans Solicitors, on behalf of their client Mr Donald Wright, asked East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) for information about maintenance and inspection records for a specified street. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs). The decision also finds that the Council failed to comply with Mr Wright’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA and the EIRs.

[2015] ScotIC 146 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554149

Mcardle and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport: SIC 23 Sep 2015

Register of Interests – On 8 December 2014, Ms McArdle asked Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) for information held in its Register of Interests pertaining to named individuals.
SPT provided some information, but informed Ms McArdle that it was withholding other information as it considered this to be third party personal data, disclosure of which would breach the data protection principles. Following a review, Ms McArdle remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that SPT was entitled to withhold the personal data.

[2015] ScotIC 148 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554152

Lincolnshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jun 2011

The complainant requested information relating to the Council’s decision to end the Stamford Scholarship Scheme. The Council supplied some information but it refused to provide copies of legal advice and cited the exemption under section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It said that the public interest did not favour disclosure of the information. The Commissioner investigated and decided that the exemption was engaged and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. He found breaches of section 10(1), 1(1)(a), 17(1) and 17(1)(a)(b) and (c). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0145 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50348631
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.530576

HM Treasury (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Jun 2011

The Complainant made a request to HM Treasury for information about plans drawn up by the Treasury in 2008 or 2009 to set up a bank to acquire toxic/bad assets from UK financial institutions and for details of assessments of the cost of such plans. He also asked for information about meetings with Lloyds TSB, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays Bank in November and December 2008 and 2009. In relation to the request for information about the meetings set out above, the Treasury explained that this information was already publicly available and provided the complainant with a link to this information. In relation to the remainder of the request, the Treasury refused to disclose this information under section 29(1)(a), section 29(1)(b), section 27(1)(a), section 35(1)(a) and section 42(1). The Commissioner considers that the section 35(1)(a) exemption was correctly engaged in this case. The Commissioner has not therefore considered the other exemptions applied.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50361967
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.530564

HM Treasury (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Jun 2011

The complainant requested the costings behind the capital gains tax rate change proposed in the emergency budget of 2010. HMT withheld the information under section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner considers that section 35(1)(a) has been applied appropriately.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50363547
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.530565

Widdrington Village Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Aug 2013

The complainant has requested information about the expenses of the Parish Council Clerk. Widdrington Village Parish Council provided some information to the complainant, it withheld some information under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and it confirmed that some of the information requested was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has now provided all information held which falls within the scope of the request apart from the information withheld under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that section 40(2) FOIA was incorrectly applied to part 5 of the request but was correctly applied to part 9 of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information requested at part 5 of the request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50475403
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.528621

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Aug 2011

The complainant requested details on how much the BBC had spent on media training for its staff over a specific time period, as well as the names of the agencies or businesses that had been used for this training. The BBC refused to disclose the cost of this training under section 43(2). The Commissioner is satisfied that this information is exempt under section 43(2).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50375439
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.530707

Royal Mail (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Aug 2013

The complainant requested information from the Royal Mail in relation to the percentage first time delivery rate by its Parcelforce depot in Deeside. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 43(2) of the FOIA is engaged in respect of this information with the public interest being balanced in favour of the exemption being maintained. The Commissioner therefore does not require the Royal Mail to take further any steps in this matter.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50476955
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.528606

Cornwall Council (Local Government): ICO 4 Mar 2020

The complainant has requested information relating to the business rates payable, and actually paid, by the liable parties on a particular property. The council initially applied section 40(2) to withhold the information. In its internal review it changed its decision. It provided details of the payable rates to the complainants, and withheld the actual rates paid by the parties under section 43(2) (commercial interests). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council also applied section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 41(1) to withhold the information from disclosure. She has not therefore found it necessary to consider the application of section 43(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 41: Complaint not upheld

[2020] UKICO fs50873141
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.651451

Nuisance Call Blocker Ltd (Prosecutions, Marketing): ICO 8 Oct 2015

ICO Nuisance Call Blocker Ltd, a cold calling prevention team, has been prosecuted for failing to respond to an information notice. The Bournemouth-based company was fined andpound;2,500, ordered to pay a andpound;120 victim surcharge and andpound;429.85 prosecution costs.

[2015] UKICO 2015-23
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553776

Anglesey County Council (Enforcement Notices, Local Government): ICO 5 Oct 2015

Anglesey County Council has been ordered to improve its data protection practices after it repeatedly failed to address security and privacy issues.
Two separate security incidents as far back as 2011 led to the council signing undertakings to make changes and improve practices. But despite committing to the improvements, audit visits in July 2013 and October 2014 still found problems with the security of personal data.

[2015] UKICO 2015-24
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553775

Cold Call Elimination Ltd (Monetary Penalties): ICO 16 Sep 2015

ICO Cold Call Elimination Ltd has been fined andpound;75,000 for making unsolicited marketing calls to sell cold call blocking devices.
The Chichester-based company was telephoning people to sell a call-blocking service and device to stop unsolicited calls, the same type of calls the company itself was making.

[2015] UKICO 2015-28
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553770

General Dental Council (Undertakings, Regulators): ICO 16 Sep 2015

An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the General Dental Council.
The Information Commissioner’s Office had been informed by the General Dental Council that it had been contacted by a registrant who had been sent fitness to practice allegations and a CD containing background information to the allegations which he believed he had been sent in error.

[2015] UKICO 2015-29
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553772

Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Ltd (Helm) (Monetary Penalties, Marketing): ICO 30 Sep 2015

ICO HELM, a green energy company, has been fined andpound;200,000 after it deliberately broke marketing call regulations.
An ICO investigation discovered that it had made over six million calls as part of a massive automated call marketing campaign offering ‘free’ solar panels.

[2015] UKICO 2015-25
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553773

Point One Marketing Ltd (Previously Conservo Digital Ltd) Trading As Stop The Calls (Monetary Penalties): ICO 10 Aug 2015

ICO Bournemouth-based Point One Marketing Ltd (previously Conservo Digital Ltd) trading as ‘Stop the Calls’, has been fined after it was found to be responsible for large numbers of nuisance calls itself. It claimed to offer a call blocking device for phones, as well as a service that removes people from a ‘cold call database’.

[2015] UKICO 2015-33
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553769

Consumer Claims Solutions Limited (Prosecutions, Marketing): ICO 4 Aug 2015

ICO A personal injury claims telemarketing company has been prosecuted at Swansea Magistrates Court for failing to notify with the ICO. Consumer Claims Solutions Limited pleaded guilty to the s17 non-notification offence and were fined andpound;200 and ordered to pay andpound;393 costs and andpound;20 victim surcharge.

[2015] UKICO 2015-37
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553765

Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board Follow Up (Undertakings): ICO 7 Jul 2015

ICO A follow-up has been completed to provide an assurance that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed 26 June 2014.

[2015] UKICO 2015-44
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board Follow Up (Undertakings) ICO 13-Feb-2015
A follow-up has been completed to provide an assurance that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed 26 June 2014. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553755

Bernard Fernandes (Prosecutions): ICO 26 Feb 2015

A former support clerk working for Transport for London has been prosecuted at Westminster Magistrates Court for unlawfully accessing the oyster card records of five individuals who were family members and neighbours. Bernard Fernandes was fined andpound;240, ordered to pay a victims surcharge of andpound;20 and andpound;618 prosecution costs.

[2015] UKICO 2015-18
Bailii
England and Wales

Information, Crime

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553741

North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust (Enforcement Notices): ICO 9 Mar 2015

Enforcement notices
North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust has been ordered by the ICO to review its data protection policy after a file containing sensitive patient information was found at a bus stop.
It was one of a number of incidents over the last year which resulted in data being lost or disclosed without authorisation leading to an enforcement notice being issued to the Trust. Other incidents included letters, notes and reports containing patient data being sent to the wrong people.

[2015] UKICO 2015-16
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553748

Staysure.Co.Uk Limited (Monetary Penalties): ICO 24 Feb 2015

ICO An online holiday insurance company has been fined andpound;175,000 by the ICO after IT security failings let hackers access customer records. More than 5,000 customers had their credit cards used by fraudsters after the attack on Staysure.co.uk.
Attackers potentially had access to over 100,000 live credit card details, as well as customers’ medical details. Credit card CVV numbers, the security number on the signature strips of the cards, were also accessible despite industry rules that they should not be stored at all.

[2015] UKICO 2015-20
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553743

Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board Follow Up (Undertakings): ICO 13 Feb 2015

A follow-up has been completed to provide an assurance that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed 26 June 2014.

[2015] UKICO 2015-7, [2015] UKICO 2015-21
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board Follow Up (Undertakings) ICO 7-Jul-2015
ICO A follow-up has been completed to provide an assurance that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed 26 June 2014. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553742

British Show Jumping Association (Undertakings, Membership Association): ICO 18 Aug 2015

ICO An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by British Show Jumping Association after a file containing a large amount of membership details was sent to the wrong distribution list. The Commissioner’s investigation revealed that British Show Jumping did not have any relevant procedures or training in place to mitigate the risk of such an incident occurring.

[2015] UKICO 2015-31
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553763

Anxiety UK (Undertakings): ICO 14 Aug 2015

ICO An Undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Anxiety UK after personal data held within a password protected area of Anxiety UK’s website, was publically available for approximately 12 months via an internet search engine. The Commissioner’s investigation revealed that the data controller had failed to ensure that the data processor had sufficient technical measures in place to properly secure its systems.

[2015] UKICO 2015-32
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553762

Help Direct UK (Enforcement Notices, Finance): ICO 17 Mar 2015

The ICO has warned Help Direct UK, a financial services call centre, to stop sending spam texts asking people if they want a review of their pension.
An enforcement notice has been issued by the Information Commissioner after a total of 659 complaints were made to the ICO and the 7726 spam text reporting service.

[2015] UKICO 2015-11
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553745

AQ v Commission: ECJ 21 Oct 2015

ECJ Judgment – Public service – Officials – Regulation No 45/2001 – personal data processing obtained for private purposes – Administrative Investigation – Disciplinary proceedings – Rights of the defense – Duty to state reasons – Disciplinary measure – Proportionality

F-57/14, [2015] EUECJ F-57/14, http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2015/F5714.html
Bailii
Regulation No 45/2001

European, Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553700

Leeds City Council (Local Government): ICO 14 Sep 2021

The complainant has requested information from Leeds City Council (‘the Council’) which concerns an application for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development on private, protected green belt land. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not correctly applied Regulation 13 of the EIR to all of the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the last two paragraphs of the email dated 23 September 2020, ensuring that any personal data is redacted under the terms of the Data Protection Act 2018.
EIR 13(1): Complaint partly upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-85154
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.669548

Transport for London (Other): ICO 23 Aug 2021

The complainant has requested copies of structural reports on Hammersmith Bridge. The Commissioner’s decision is that Transport for London (‘TfL’) is entitled to rely upon section 14 (1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA to refuse the request. However, in applying section 14(1) outside the time for compliance, the Council has breached section 17. The Commissioner requires no further steps.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-68268
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.669474

East Sussex County Council (Judgment): ECJ 6 Oct 2015

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/4/EC – Articles 5 and 6 – Public access to environmental information – Charge for supplying environmental information – Reasonable amount – Costs of maintaining a database and overheads – Access to justice – Administrative and judicial review of a decision imposing a charge

C-71/14, [2015] EUECJ C-71/14
Bailii
Directive 2003/4/EC
European

Environment, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553095

Weltimmo sro v Nemzeti Adatvedelmi es Informacioszabadsag Hatosag: ECJ 1 Oct 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Articles 4(1) and 28(1), (3) and (6) – Controller who is formally established in a Member State – Impairment of the right to the protection of personal data concerning natural persons in another Member State – Determination of the applicable law and the competent supervisory authority – Exercise of the powers of the supervisory authority – Power to impose penalties

ECLI:EU:C:2015:639, C-230/14, [2015] EUECJ C-230/14
Bailii
Directive 95/46/EC

European, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552882

Bara And Others v Presedintele Casei Na?ionale de Asigurari de Sanatate: ECJ 1 Oct 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 95/46/EC – Processing of personal data – Articles 10 and 11 – Data subjects’ information – Article 13 – Exceptions and limitations – Transfer by a public administrative body of a Member State of personal tax data for processing by another public administrative body

ECLI:EU:C:2015:638, C-201/14, [2015] EUECJ C-201/14
Bailii
Directive 95/46/EC

European, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552871

Clientearth v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA): ECFI 23 Sep 2015

(Judgment) Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents held by ECHA – Documents deriving from a third party – Time-limit for response to an application for access – Refusal of access – Exception relating to protection of the commercial interests of a third party – Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process – Overriding public interest – Environmental information – Emissions into the environment

T-245/11, [2015] EUECJ T-245/11
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
European

Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552740

Mr R and Scottish Prison Service (Employment of Prisoners In Prison Kitchen): SIC 7 Sep 2015

SIC On 16 February 2015, Mr R asked the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) for information pertaining to the employment of prisoners in the HMP Edinburgh prison kitchen.
The SPS provided Mr R with some of the information he had requested, and informed him that certain information was otherwise available to him. The SPS refused to provide the remainder of the information as it considered it to be third party personal data, disclosure of which would breach the data protection principles.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SPS had responded to Mr R’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 143 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552563

Mr Paul Hutcheon and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland (Housing Allowances for Police Officers): SIC 1 Sep 2015

Housing allowances for police officers – On 19 January 2015, Paul Hutcheon asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for information on the amount of housing allowance claimed by officers in 2013-14.
Police Scotland provided Mr Hutcheon with information fulfilling part of his request, but they refused to provide a breakdown of the amount of housing allowance claimed by individual senior officers. Following a review, Mr Hutcheon remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that Police Scotland were entitled to withhold the information on the basis that it was personal data, disclosure of which would breach the first data protection principle, and therefore it was exempt from disclosure under FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 139 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552562

Mr Ian W Baxter and Aberdeenshire Council (Alleged Blue Badge Misuse): SIC 1 Sep 2015

SIC On 10 September and 9 October 2014, Mr Baxter asked Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) for information relating to the possible misuse of a Blue Badge.
The Council refused to provide the information, considering it to be personal data, disclosure of which would breach the data protection principles. Following a review, the Council provided some information. Mr Baxter remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had generally responded to Mr Baxter’s requests for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, although it should not have Mr Baxter that it held no information in relation to his request of 9 October

[2015] ScotIC 140 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552561

Kelly and Nhs Tayside (Information Relating To Professor Muftah Salem Eljamel): SIC 24 Aug 2015

Information relating to Professor Muftah Salem Eljamel – On 2 December 2014, Mr Patrick Kelly asked NHS Tayside for information relating to Professor Muftah Salem Eljamel.
NHS Tayside responded by providing some information, stating that some of the information was not held and refusing to confirm or deny whether it held other information. Following a review, Mr Kelly remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that NHS Tayside was entitled to do this.

[2015] ScotIC 136 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552553

Oxton House Rest Home and Glasgow City Council (Step Up Service): SIC 26 Aug 2015

SIC Step Up Service – On 5 March 2015, Oxton House Rest Home (Oxton House) asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) how much it paid to private care homes per week for the Step Up Service for one individual.
The Council initially told Oxton House that the information was exempt from disclosure under FOISA. After review, it stated that it did not hold the information.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that the Council did not hold the information Oxton House had asked for. She did not require the Council to take any action.

[2015] ScotIC 137 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552556

Mr Hutcheon and Scottish Ministers (Applications for Interception Warrants): SIC 8 Sep 2015

SIC Applications for Interception warrants – On 11 November 2015, Mr Hutcheon asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for statistical breakdowns of applications for interception warrants in financial years 2012/3 and 2013/4.
The Ministers responded by providing some information, but also refusing some information.
Following a review, Mr Hutcheon remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Ministers had properly responded to Mr Hutcheon’s request for information, in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 144 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552560

Mclean and City of Edinburgh Council (St Stephen’S Church Clock, Edinburgh): SIC 11 Aug 2015

SIC St Stephen’s Church Clock, Edinburgh – On 3 September 2014, Mr McLean asked the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for information about the chime from St Stephen’s Church clock.
Following a review, the Council disclosed some information to Mr McLean, but withheld other information. Mr McLean remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had been wrong to withhold some information from Mr McLean under regulations 10(5)(f) and 10(4)(e) of the EIRs. She accepted that the Council was entitled to withhold some personal information under regulation 11(2), and some information under regulations 10(4)(e) and 10(5)(f) of the EIRs.
The Commissioner ordered the Council to disclose the information which the Council had wrongly withheld from Mr McLean.

[2015] ScotIC 128 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552550

Allan Milligan and Glasgow City Council (Legal Authorisation To Claim Additional Monies: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales): SIC 9 Sep 2015

Legal authorisation to claim additional monies: Failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 7 May 2015, Mr Milligan asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for evidence of the Council’s legal authority to claim what he described as ‘additional monies’ in relation to the recovery of parking charges. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that Glasgow City Council failed to comply with Mr Milligan’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 145 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552558

Ms S and Aberdeenshire Council (Termination Payment): SIC 11 Aug 2015

Termination payment – On 13 March 2015, Ms S asked Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) for information about the payment agreed with Tesco following the termination of a contract for the sale of land. The Council withheld the information.
Following a review, Ms S remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had properly responded to Ms S’ request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. The Commissioner found that at the time of its response the Council was entitled to withhold the information under the exemption in section 33(1)(b) of FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 127 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552555

Mr Andrew Hamilton and Scottish Qualifications Authority (Qualifications of Named Individuals): SIC 1 Sep 2015

SIC Qualifications of named individuals- On 9 April 2015, Mr Hamilton asked the Scottish Qualifications Agency (the SQA) for qualification and training information about two named individuals. The SQA stated that the requested information was exempt from disclosure as it consisted of personal data.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SQA was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held relevant recorded information, or whether such information existed.

[2015] ScotIC 141 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552559

Mr Y and Forth Valley NHS Board (Accident and Incident Forms: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales): SIC 17 Aug 2015

Accident and incident forms: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 23 February 2015, Mr Y submitted four information requests to Forth Valley NHS Board (NHS Forth Valley) for the accident and incident forms completed by healthcare staff for each week over a four week period. This decision finds that NHS Forth Valley failed to respond to the four requests within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that NHS Forth Valley failed to comply with Mr Y’s requirements for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.
The Commissioner ordered NHS Forth Valley to respond to Mr Y’s requirement for review in relation to three of his requests.

[2015] ScotIC 131 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552554

Mr N and New College Lanarkshire (Investigation Information): SIC 18 Aug 2015

SIC Investigation Information – On 16 February 2015, Mr N asked New College Lanarkshire (the College) for a copy of an investigation into concerns he had raised with the College in 2012 regarding a named member of staff.
The College responded by informing Mr N that the information was personal data and exempt from disclosure. Following investigation, the Commissioner found that the College was entitled to withhold the information on the basis that it was personal data, disclosure of which would breach the data protection principles.

[2015] ScotIC 132 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552552

Mr K and Scottish Prison Service (Search Procedures At External Work Placements): SIC 19 Aug 2015

Search procedures at external work placements – On 2 October 2014, Mr K asked the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) for information relating to procedures for searching prisoners at external work placements.
The SPS provided some information, informing Mr K that it did not hold the remainder. Mr K was dissatisfied that he had not been provided with all the information he had requested and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that the SPS did not hold any further information.

[2015] ScotIC 133 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552551

Hamilton and University of Edinburgh (Attendance at Courses): SIC 19 Aug 2015

SIC Attendance at courses – On 11 March 2015, Mr Hamilton asked the University of Edinburgh (the University) for information which would show whether two named individuals had attended certain courses. The University stated that it did not hold any information about one of the individuals. In relation to the other individual, it stated that it required further information from Mr Hamilton to allow it to identify the information, and that the cost of providing information would be excessive.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner did not accept that the University required further information from Mr Hamilton in order to comply with his request. However, she accepted that the University did not hold information about one individual and that, given the broad terms of Mr Hamilton’s request, it would cost more than andpound;600 to provide information about the other individual.

[2015] ScotIC 134 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552549

Ms Peigi Macsween and The Scottish Ambulance Service Board (Actions Following A Complaint: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales): SIC 30 Jul 2015

SIC Actions following a complaint: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 5 February 2015, Ms MacSween asked the Scottish Ambulance Service Board (the Board) for information about actions taken following a complaint she had raised. This decision finds that the Board failed to comply with Ms MacSween’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 125 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552544

Mcleod and Glasgow City Council (Information Regarding Repairs at a Named Property): SIC 23 Jul 2015

SIC Information regarding repairs at a named property – On 16 May 2014, Ms McLeod asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information relating to repairs to a common stair at a named property.
The Council told Ms McLeod it did not have to disclose the information because, in terms of regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIRs, it was already publicly available and easily accessible to her.
Following a review, Ms McLeod remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had failed to respond to Ms McLeod’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA and with the EIRs. The Council wrongly relied on regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIRs to withhold some environmental information, and also failed to identify that some of the withheld information was not environmental information and so should have been considered under FOISA.
The Commissioner required the Council to issue a new review outcome to Ms McLeod that complied with FOISA and the EIRs.

[2015] ScotIC 114 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552543

Hamilton and Scottish Social Services Council (Attendance At Courses and Qualifications Obtained): SIC 25 Aug 2015

SIC Attendance at courses and qualifications obtained – On 11 March 2015, Mr Hamilton asked the Scottish Social Services Council (the SSSC) for information which would show whether two named individuals had attended certain courses and obtained certain qualifications.
The SSSC withheld this information on the basis that it was personal data of the two named individuals and was exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that the SSSC did not hold some of the information Mr Hamilton had asked for, but that it had failed to notify Mr Hamilton that this was the case. The Commissioner accepted that the information held by the SSSC was exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 135 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552548

Harte and Aberdeen City Council (Inspection of Leased Property: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales): SIC 24 Jul 2015

Inspection of leased property: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 19 March 2015, Mr Harte asked Aberdeen City Council (the Council) for information about inspection of leased property and dealing with landlords. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Council failed to comply with Mr Harte’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.
The Commissioner has ordered the Council to comply with the requirement for review.

[2015] ScotIC 116 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552541

Begbies Traynor Group Plc and Transport Scotland: SIC 27 Aug 2015

Payment information – bridge works – On 18 August 2014, Begbies Traynor Group PLC (BTG) asked Transport Scotland for the final account agreed with Bam Nuttall Limited (BNL) for a specific project, with particular reference to the blast cleaning and painting works. Transport Scotland withheld the information on the basis that disclosure would substantially prejudice the commercial interests of BNL and Transport Scotland. The Commissioner accepted this argument from Transport Scotland.

[2015] ScotIC 138 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552546

Robb and Chief Constable of Police Scotland (Bail Checks): SIC 27 Jul 2015

SIC Bail checks – On 9 March 2015, Mr Robb asked the Chief Constable of Police Scotland (Police Scotland) for information about bail checks and time taken for these bail checks.
Police Scotland stated that they were not required to provide the information about bail checks as the cost of doing so would be excessive, and they did not hold the information about the time the checks had taken.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner upheld Police Scotland’s response.

[2015] ScotIC 118 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552540

Mr Tommy Kane and The Scottish Ministers (Use of Private Contractors In The NHS): SIC 28 Jul 2015

Use of private contractors in the NHS – On 1 September 2014, Mr Kane asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for correspondence relating to the use of private contractors in Scotland’s NHS, the potential for charging of health and social care services and any concerns that Scotland’s Health Services might be impacted by changes to the NHS in England. The Ministers disclosed some information, but withheld three documents, on the basis that disclosure would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice.
Following a review, Mr Kane remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner ordered the Ministers to disclose some of the information which had been withheld from Mr Kane.

[2015] ScotIC 119 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552542

Mr Alan Johnston and Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Fire Service Promotions: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales): SIC 18 Aug 2015

Fire service promotions: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 18 April 2015, Mr Johnston asked the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (the SFRS) for information about promotions in the fire service. This decision finds that the SFRS failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the SFRS failed to comply with Mr Johnston’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 129 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552547

Animal Concern and Scottish Ministers (Effect of Sea Lice Infestations at Marine Salmon Farms On Wild Salmonids): SIC 19 Aug 2015

Effect of sea lice infestations at marine salmon farms on wild salmonids – On 9 April 2014, Animal Concern asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for copies of all communications between Marine Scotland and Scottish Government Ministers regarding sea lice infestations at marine salmon farms and the effect of such infestations on wild salmonids.
The Ministers responded by withholding all of the requested information under the exception contained in regulation 10(4)(e) of the EIRs.
Following a review, the Ministers disclosed some information but withheld other information under the exceptions contained in regulations 10(4)(e) and 11(2) of the EIRS. Animal Concern remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Ministers had wrongly withheld some information under regulation 10(4)(e) of the EIRs. She required the Ministers to provide Animal Concern with this information.

[2015] ScotIC 130 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552545

Hutcheon and The Scottish Ministers (Details of Hospitality Events At Bute House: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales): SIC 30 Jul 2015

SIC Details of hospitality events at Bute House: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 30 March 2015, Mr Hutcheon asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for the names of those receiving hospitality at Bute House since Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister, along with dates on which the hospitality was received and also dates of meetings with Rupert Murdoch for the same period. This decision finds that the Ministers failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Ministers failed to comply with Mr Hutcheon’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 124 – 2015
Bailii
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552539

Scott and Scottish Prison Service (Copies of A Health and Safety Report): SIC 23 Jul 2015

Copies of a health and safety report- Mr Scott asked the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) for all versions of a Health and Safety report (the report). The SPS stated that it did not hold any draft reports, and the only version held had been previously provided to Mr Scott.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner upheld the SPS’s response.

[2015] ScotIC 115 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552536

The Kennel Club and The Scottish Ministers (Orkney Core Path Plan Review): SIC 27 Jul 2015

Orkney Core Path Plan review – On 23 July 2014, The Kennel Club asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information relating to Orkney’s Core Path Plan.
The Ministers responded to the request. They disclosed some information but withheld some on the basis that it was legal advice so exempt under FOISA. The Kennel Club was dissatisfied so requested a review. The Ministers responded, having considered the request under the EIRs rather than FOISA. They withheld information on the basis that it comprised internal communications.
The Kennel Club remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision. The Commissioner investigated and found that the Ministers had responded to the Kennel Club’s request for information properly, in accordance with the EIRs.

[2015] ScotIC 120 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552533

Mr Alastair Tibbitt and City of Edinburgh Council (Consultancy Contract: Economic Development of Edinburgh’s East End): SIC 28 Jul 2015

SIC Consultancy contract: economic development of Edinburgh’s East End – On 15 January 2015, Mr Tibbitt asked City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for information about a consultancy contract relating to the economic development of Edinburgh’s East End.
The Council considered the request under the EIRs, and initially responded by providing some information and purporting to withhold the remainder on the basis that it was commercially confidential. Following a review, the Council changed its position and informed Mr Tibbitt that it did not hold the information. Mr Tibbitt remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had partially failed to respond to Mr Tibbitt’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs. While she accepted that the Council did not hold the information requested, on its own interpretation of the request, the Commissioner found that this interpretation was too narrow and required the Council to give a further response to Mr Tibbitt in respect of the remaining information.

[2015] ScotIC 121 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552534

Mr James Duff and The Accountant In Bankruptcy (Copies of Reports): SIC 28 Jul 2015

Copies of reports – On 26 January 2015, Mr Duff asked the Accountant in Bankruptcy (the AIB) for copies of all reports showing legislation was complied with in his specific case. The AIB told Mr Duff that it did not hold the information requested.
Following an investigation the Commissioner accepted this.

[2015] ScotIC 117 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552538

Mr J and The Scottish Prison Service (Investigation Report): SIC 29 Jul 2015

Investigation report – On 16 February 2015, Mr J asked the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) for information relating to an investigation carried out by the SPS and New College Lanarkshire (the College). The SPS told Mr J that it did not hold the information requested.
Following an investigation the Commissioner accepted this.

[2015] ScotIC 123 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552537

Nugent and Glasgow City Council (Meeting Minutes and Mandates In Respect of Taxi Tariff): SIC 29 Jul 2015

Meeting minutes and mandates in respect of Taxi Tariff – On 4 August 2014, Mr Nugent asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information about a meeting between the Council and Glasgow Taxis Ltd, and mandates submitted by the union, Unite.
The Council responded by supplying some information and stating that it did not hold other information. It refused to provide information from the mandates on the grounds that it was ‘sensitive personal data’ and exempt from disclosure. Following a review, Mr Nugent remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council did not hold any mandates from the members of Unite, and had failed to give Mr Nugent notice of this. The Council had provided the information which it held, and had correctly given notice that it did not hold other information covered by his request. She did not require the Council to take any action.

[2015] ScotIC 122 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552535