Category: Information

Hackney London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Jun 2011

The complainant requested information about the East Marsh wind turbine survey. The council handled the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and disclosed some of the requested information, but withheld the remainder as personal data citing section 40(2) and additionally section 41(1) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the Council should have dealt with the request under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). Having considered the case under regulation 13 of EIR the Commissioner finds that the withheld information is not personal data. The Commissioner also found that regulation 12(5)(d) – ‘confidentiality of proceedings’ did not apply. The Commissioner has therefore ordered the Council to disclose the information. The Commissioner also noted a number of procedural breaches.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.d – Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50315994
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.530558

Southwark Council (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested information regarding legal cases involving the public authority. The public authority relied on section 12 not to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority’s reliance on section 12 was correct.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50498333
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.528929

General Dental Council (Decision Notice): ICO 26 Mar 2014

The complainant requested from the General Dental Council information about the investigation of a complaint that he made about a dentist. The GDC disclosed some information but withheld other information under various exemptions under FOIA. The complainant complained that the GDC had interpreted the scope of his request too narrowly and had withheld information that should have been disclosed to him. The Commissioner made an initially determination as to whether the GDC had correctly interpreted the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GDC has correctly interpreted the scope of the complainant’s request. He therefore does not require the GDC to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation in relation to its interpretation of the scope of the request. However, he has found that by not responding promptly to the complainant’s request, the GDC breached section 10 of FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50507507
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.527583

Wrexham County Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Nov 2013

The complainant requested information about a particular House of Lords Judgement. The Council withheld some information relating to the request under section 32 of the FOIA. The Council also stated that it did not hold any financial information relating to the court case. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council stated that it was relying on section 32 for some of the requested information and section 42 in relation to other information held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions have been applied correctly by the Council. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 32 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50499919
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.528945

Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Sep 2012

The complainant requested the locations of noise monitoring equipment relating to the proposed development of a wind farm. Northumberland County Council (the Council) refused to disclose this information and cited the exception from disclosure provided by Regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that in relation to some of the information the Council applied this exception correctly. However, in relation to the remainder of the information, the Commissioner finds that this exception was not engaged and the Council is required to disclose this information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the one address which has been found to not be personal data and the four addresses in relation to which there would be no breach of the first data protection principle through disclosure. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2012] UKICO FER0454326
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.529853

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50542207: ICO 24 Feb 2015

The complainant requested information relating to land which he bought from the council. He asked for details it holds relating to work carried out on the land by a third party and any enforcement taken against it. The council refused the request on the grounds that Regulation 12(4)(b) applies (manifestly unreasonable). It said that any information it might hold would have been transferred to it by Kerrier Council as part of a merger in 2009 but a lot of information would also have been destroyed or deleted. It therefore does not know whether relevant information is held and it cannot determine this without carrying out significant searches of its archives which would place a disproportionate burden on it. The Commissioner asked the council to provide further information on the application of the exception, however the council failed to provide any information supporting its decision other than to repeat that it would need to search the entire archive to determine whether any information was held. The council failed to provide details of the size of the archive or whether it was indexed when asked to do so however. In the absence of such information the Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to respond to the complainants request again without relying upon Regulation 12(4)(b)
EIR 12(4)(b): Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50542207
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.555072

Transport for London (Other): ICO 31 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to the number of taxi driver licences revoked or suspended due to depression, anxiety or any other mental health condition. TfL refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL was correct to apply section 12 FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner also considers that TfL provided the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

[2019] UKICO fs50848591
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.650255

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)) FER0562199: ICO 24 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested details of a proposed plan to place wind turbines on a number of sites within the county. The council applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to the information on the basis that the information is commercially confidential to it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to the information. He has however also decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 5(2) in that it did not respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0078 allowed in part.
EIR 12(5)(e): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0562199
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.555071

Dawson-Damer and Others v Taylor Wessing Llp and Others: ChD 6 Aug 2015

The clamants sought orders under the 1998 Act for disclosure of documents about them by the defendant solicitors and others. The defendants said that the request would require the consideration of a very large number of documents, considering in each case whether they would require discovery and or were protected by legal professional privilege, and that the exercise would be disproprtionate. The claimants said that the rules of equity as they applied to trustees should be used to restrict the claims of legal professional privilege.
Held: It was not reasonable or proportionate on the facts of this case for TW to carry out the necessary search to determine if any particular document was covered by privilege.

Behrens J HHJ
[2015] EWHC 2366 (Ch)
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Durant v Financial Services Authority CA 8-Dec-2003
The appellant had been unsuccessful in litigation against his former bank. The Financial Services Authority had subsequently investigated his complaint against the bank. Using section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he requested disclosure of his . .
Cited – Ezsias v The Welsh Ministers QBD 23-Nov-2007
The Claimant claimed under Section 7(9) of the 1998 Act for failures to disclose data to him following several requests. He sought (i) a declaration that the National Assembly had failed to comply with their obligations under the 1998 Act, (ii) . .
Cited – Elliott v Lloyds TSB Bank 24-Apr-2012
Leeds County Court – The court considered the extent of the obligation imposed by s 8(2) of the 1998 Act.
Held: The data controller is only required under the section to supply the individual with such personal data as is found after a . .
Cited – Iesini and Others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and Others ChD 16-Oct-2009
The claimants were shareholders in Westrip, accusing the Defendant directors of deliberately engaging in a course of conduct which has led to Westrip losing ownership and control of a very valuable mining licence and which, but for their . .
Cited – Talbot v Marshfield 15-Jun-1865
Trustees took counsel’s opinion as to whether they should exercise a discretionary power to advance part of their trust fund for the benefit of some of the cestuis que trust: and others of the cestuis que trust having filed a bill to restrain them . .
Cited – Thomas v Secretary of State for India in Council 1870
Subscribers to an annuity fund asserted claims to surplus money belonging to the fund. The trustees took advice in relation to that claim. One of the subscribers filed a Summons to compel the production of the legal opinion.
Held: Where there . .
Cited – In re Londonderry’s Settlement; Peat v Lady Walsh CA 3-Nov-1964
The Court considered limitations on the right to disclosure of trust documents, and in particuar the need to protect confidentiality in communications between trustees as to the exercise of their dispositive discretions, and in communications made . .
Cited – Vadim Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Limited PC 27-Mar-2003
PC (Isle of Man) The petitioner sought disclosure of trust documents, as a beneficiary. Disclosure had been refused as he had not been a named beneficiary.
Held: Times had moved on, and trust documents had . .
Cited – Breakspear and others v Ackland and Another ChD 19-Feb-2008
Beneficiaries sought disclosure of a wishes letter provided by the settlor to the trustees in a family discretionary trust.
Held: The confidentiality in the letter was, in the absence of some express term by the settlor, in the trustees, and . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers plc CA 14-Oct-2002
The newspaper appealed against a finding that it had infringed the claimant’s privacy by publishing a photograph of her leaving a drug addiction clinic.
Held: The claimant had courted publicity, and denied an involvement in drugs. The defence . .
Cited – B and Others Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet and Co v Auckland District Law Society, Gary J Judd PC 19-May-2003
(New Zealand) Solicitors resisted requests to disclose papers in breach of legal professional privilege from their professional body investigating allegations of professional misconduct against them.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Legal Professions

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551025

Mr V v City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 14 Jul 2015

Remediation Reports for Completed Development: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales – On 6 June 2015, Mr V asked City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for remediation reports on a completed development. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to the requirement for review within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA)/the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs).

[2015] ScotIC 113 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550880

Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture v Scottish Ministers: SIC 7 Jul 2015

Seal Killing Return Forms From Salmon Farms for 2013 and 2014 – On 12 January 2015, Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture (GAAIA) asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for the seal killing return forms from salmon farms for the years 2013 and 2014.
The Ministers withheld the information, claiming that disclosure would cause substantial prejudice to public safety.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the seal killing return forms from salmon farms for the years 2013 and 2014 should be disclosed.

[2015] ScotIC 103 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550872

Mr Y and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 7 Jul 2015

SIC Advertisement Drums – On 11 March 2015, Mr Y asked City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for the number of ‘advertising drums’ currently in operation on Council-owned land, with a list of locations. The Council provided some information to Mr Y. During the investigation, the Council notified the Commissioner that it held additional information and that this had now been provided to Mr Y.
While the Council failed to comply with the EIRs in not providing this information earlier, the Commissioner was satisfied by the end of the investigation that all relevant information had been provided to Mr Y.

[2015] ScotIC 106 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550883

Howarth and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 7 Jul 2015

SIC ICR Report and Related Information – On 18 August 2015, Mr Howarth asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for the Initial Case Review (ICR) report concerning Daniel Welsh, with the reasons why this was not taken to a Significant Case Review (SCR).
Police Scotland responded by stating that the report was exempt from disclosure, on the basis it was personal information and related to a criminal investigation. Following a review, Mr Howarth remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that Police Scotland partially failed to respond to Mr Howarth’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. In particular, Police Scotland failed to identify all of the relevant information it held. The Commissioner accepted that all of the information was correctly withheld, however, on the basis that it was personal data and its disclosure would breach the first data protection principle.

[2015] ScotIC 105 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550878

Howie and Perth and Kinross Council: SIC 8 Jul 2015

Artists’ Fees for The Festive Lights Switch-On In Perth – On 10 November 2014, Mr Howie asked Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) about the cost of the festive lights switch-on in Perth, including the fee paid to each performing artist. The Council provided some information, but withheld individual fees. Following a review, Mr Howie remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had wrongly withheld the information covered by Mr Howie’s request. She required the Council to disclose the information to Mr Howie.

[2015] ScotIC 107 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550877

Tobermann and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 9 Jul 2015

Road and Pavement Repairs – On 17 October 2014, Mr Tobermann asked City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for a list of defects relating to recent road and pavement works on a section of Leith Walk, Edinburgh.
The Council considered the request under the EIRs and refused to provide the information, for reasons including commercial confidentiality. Following a review, Mr Tobermann remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had correctly withheld the information under regulation 10(5)(e) of the EIRs, on the basis of commercial confidentiality.

[2015] ScotIC 108 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550876

Hutcheon and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 9 Jul 2015

SIC Statistics for Covert Surveillance – On 15 April 2014, Mr Hutcheon asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for statistical information on interception warrants and authorisations and notices for communications.
Police Scotland withheld some information, explaining that RIPA legislation prevented its disclosure. For the remaining requests, they submitted that the cost of compliance would exceed the andpound;600 cost limit (so they were not required to respond). Mr Hutcheon remained dissatisfied with the outcome and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that Police Scotland were entitled to withhold the information about interception warrants under section 26(a) of FOISA.
However, she was not satisfied that the Police were entitled to refuse to comply with the requests about authorisations and notices on the basis of excessive cost. She also identified a failure in the time taken by Police Scotland to issue the review outcome

[2015] ScotIC 109 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550879

National Alliance Against Tolls and Transport Scotland: SIC 1 Jul 2015

SIC Breakdown of Estimated Cost for Forth Replacement Crossing – On 23 September 2014, National Alliance Against Tolls (NAAT) asked Transport Scotland for a breakdown of the latest estimated cost of the Forth Replacement Crossing.
Transport Scotland considered NAAT’s request under the EIRs, applying regulation 6(1)(b) to some of the information on the basis that it was available on Transport Scotland’s website. It also withheld information it did not consider to be finalised, under regulation 10(4)(d) of the EIRs.
Following a review, Transport Scotland provided a breakdown of the estimated cost.
NAAT was not satisfied with the breakdown provided and the Commissioner investigated. She found that Transport Scotland failed to respond to the request in full and therefore failed to comply with regulation 5(1) of the EIRs. This failure was addressed during the investigation, so she did not require Transport Scotland to take any action.

[2015] ScotIC 101 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550885

Brooks and Scottish Police Authority: SIC 13 Jul 2015

Raw Data From The Police Firearms Survey – On 5 February 2015, Mr Brooks asked the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) for the full, raw data results that were used to compile the Police Firearms Survey carried out by the research group TNS. The SPA replied that it did not hold the information. Following a review, Mr Brooks remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SPA does not hold the raw data. She is satisfied that the SPA responded to Mr Brooks’ request in accordance with FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 110 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550874

Codona and Glasgow City Council: SIC 1 Jul 2015

SIC Procedures Manual – On 28 February 2015, Mr Codona asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information from its procedures manual or similar documents relating to the Council’s implementation of its obligations under specified parts and sections of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The Council informed Mr Codona that it was not obliged to comply with his request as the cost of doing so would be more than andpound;600.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner was not persuaded that the Council’s submissions were sufficiently robust for her to accept that the request could be refused on grounds of excessive cost. She required the Council to give a further, different, response to Mr Codona’s request.

Procedures Manual
[2015] ScotIC 100 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550873

Mr X and South Lanarkshire Council: SIC 13 Jul 2015

SIC Neighbourhood Dispute: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales – On 23 April 2015, Mr X asked South Lanarkshire Council for information about a neighbour’s dog entering his garden. This decision finds that South Lanarkshire Council responded to Mr X’s requirement for review within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

[2015] ScotIC 111 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550882

Lynch and Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (): SIC 6 Jul 2015

SIC Whether Request Vexatious and Business Names – On 8 January 2015, Ms Lynch asked Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS) for information relating to the workload and job description of a named member of staff.
SCSWIS responded by providing her with the job description but withholding business names under section 33(1)(b) (commercial interests) of FOISA. It stated that it considered the remainder of her request to be vexatious in terms of section 14(1) of FOISA. Following a review, Ms Lynch remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated. She accepted SCSWIS’s reliance on section 33(1)(b) of FOISA in relation to business names but did not accept that the remainder of Ms Lynch’s request was vexatious. She required SCSWIS to provide Ms Lynch with an alternative response to her requirement for review, in respect of those parts of the request it considered vexatious.

[2015] ScotIC 104 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550884

Mr H and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 14 Jul 2015

On 12 December 2014, Mr H asked the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about payments made to prisoners at a named prison. The SPS informed Mr H that some of the information was already accessible to him and that it did not hold other information covered by his request.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SPS was correct to inform Mr H that some information was accessible to him, but was wrong to state that it did not hold other information. The SPS made this information available to Mr H during the investigation.

[2015] ScotIC 112 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550875

Paterson and Scottish Ministers: SIC 17 Jun 2015

Scottish North Sea Tax Revenue Projections: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales – On 26 February 2015, Mr Paterson asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information relating to illustrative projections for Scottish North Sea tax revenue. This decision finds that the Ministers failed to respond to the applicant’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

[2015] ScotIC 081 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550860

Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture and Scottish Ministers: SIC 7 Jul 2015

SIC Numbers of Seals Shot and Related Correspondence – On 24 July 2014, Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture (GAAIA) asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information about seal killings at salmon farms during 2014 and for correspondence on the provision of seal killing statistics.
The Ministers withheld the number of seals shot at each farm and stated that they did not hold any relevant correspondence.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted that the Ministers did not hold the correspondence GAAIA had asked for, but found that the information about the number of seals shot at each farm should be disclosed.

[2015] ScotIC 102 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550871

Picken and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland (2): SIC 12 Jun 2015

Crime and Incident Audits: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales – On 19 January 2015, Mr Picken asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for information about crime and incident audits involving crimes subsequently marked ‘no crime’. This decision finds that Police Scotland failed to comply with Mr Picken’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).
The Commissioner has ordered Police Scotland to comply with the requirement for review.

[2015] ScotIC 077 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550854

Mackenzie and Scottish Public Services Ombudsman: SIC 17 Jun 2015

SIC Correspondence Regarding A Complaint – On 10 December 2014, Mr Mackenzie asked the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (the SPSO) for correspondence sent to and received by the SPSO during its investigation of a complaint.
The SPSO withheld the information under section 26(a) of FOISA, on the basis that its disclosure was prohibited by other legislation. The SPSO also notified Mr Mackenzie that much of the information he requested contained his own personal data and, while this was exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(a) of FOISA, he could obtain it by requesting it under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA).
Following a review, Mr Mackenzie remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SPSO was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 26(a) of FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 080 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550868

Delamore and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 19 Jun 2015

SIC The Investigation Into Willie Macrae’s Death – On 14 July 2014, Mr Paul Delamore asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for information regarding the investigation into Willie Macrae’s death.
Police Scotland withheld the information, claiming that disclosure would prejudice their ability to prevent and detect crime, apprehend or prosecute offenders. Following a review, Mr Delamore remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that Police Scotland had failed to respond to Mr Delamore’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. This was because Police Scotland had wrongly withheld information requested by Mr Delamore, and they had also failed to notify Mr Delamore that some of the information he requested was not held. She required Police Scotland to provide Mr Delamore with the information he had requested and which they held.

[2015] ScotIC 084 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550864

Gordon and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission: SIC 18 Jun 2015

Number of Cases Investigated By A Named Officer – On 10 March 2015, Mrs Gordon asked the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) for the number of cases a named person was involved in whilst working for the SCCRC. The SCCRC withheld this information on the basis that it was personal data, exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SCCRC was entitled to withhold the information under this exemption, but that its responses were not fully compliant with FOISA. The Commissioner did not require the SCCRC to take any action in respect of these failures.

[2015] ScotIC 083 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550869

Picken and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland (1): SIC 18 Jun 2015

Recording and Classifying Crimes: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales – On 24 February 2015, Mr Picken asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for information contained in internal reports relating to recording and classifying crimes. This decision finds that Police Scotland failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that Police Scotland failed to comply with Mr Picken’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.
The Commissioner has ordered Police Scotland to comply with the requirement for review.

[2015] ScotIC 086 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550855

Donnelly and Chief Constable of Police Service of Scotland: SIC 19 Jun 2015

Whether Request Vexatious – On 4 October 2014, Mr Donnelly asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for information relating to a specified incident in 2002.
Police Scotland stated that they considered Mr Donnelly’s request to be vexatious. Following a review, Mr Donnelly remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated, and agreed that Police Scotland were entitled to refuse to comply with Mr Donnelly’s request on the basis that it was vexatious.

[2015] ScotIC 088 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550859

Mr Bruce Sandison and Scottish Ministers: SIC 18 Jun 2015

Names of Officials Who Provided Advice To Ministers – On 25 August 2014, Mr Bruce Sandison asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information from communications between Marine Scotland and the Scottish Government relating to the effect of sea lice infestations at marine salmon farms on populations of wild salmonids.
The Ministers provided some information to Mr Sandison, but withheld other information under various exceptions. In his request for review, Mr Sandison challenged the decision to withhold the names of those individuals who had provided advice to Ministers. Following a review, Mr Sandison remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Ministers had responded to Mr Sandison’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs. This was because the Ministers correctly applied the exception in regulation 11(2) to the names being withheld. She did not require the Ministers to take any action.

[2015] ScotIC 082 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550856

Hutcheon and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 22 Jun 2015

SIC User Satisfaction Surveys Reports: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales – On 11 March 2015, Mr Hutcheon asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for information about guidance for staff and officers who worked on the User Satisfaction Survey, along with reports on the findings of these surveys. This decision finds that Police Scotland failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that Police Scotland failed to comply with Mr Hutcheon’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 091 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550866

Mr N and South Lanarkshire Council: SIC 22 Jun 2015

Whether Request Vexatious – On 5 January 2015, Mr N asked South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) to confirm receiving specified payments for land and leases previously owned by him.
The Council responded to Mr N stating that it considered his request to be vexatious. The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had acted correctly in its use of the vexatious provisions and in how it responded to Mr N’s request for information.

[2015] ScotIC 090 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550862

Mitchell and Risk Management Authority: SIC 22 Jun 2015

Changes To Risk Level Definitions – On 17 October 2014, Mr Mitchell asked the Risk Management Authority (the RMA) for information relating to changes to risk level definitions.
RMA responded and withheld the information under various exemptions in FOISA. Following a review, Mr Mitchell remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the RMA disclosed information to Mr Mitchell in relation to part of his request, subject to the redaction of personal data. The RMA continued to withhold other information in its entirety.
The Commissioner investigated and found that RMA had partially failed to respond to Mr Mitchell’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. She found that the RMA was entitled to withhold some of the information on the basis that disclosure was likely to substantially prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. She also found that the RMA was entitled to apply section 38(1)(b) (Personal information) of FOISA to most of the information redacted as personal data.
The Commissioner found that the RMA had failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOISA, by initially failing to identify all of the information falling within the scope of Mr Mitchell’s request and also by withholding information under sections 37(1)(a)(iii) (Court records etc.) and 38(1)(b). She required the RMA to provide Mr Mitchell with the information it had wrongly withheld.

[2015] ScotIC 089 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550861

Picken and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 1 Jun 2015

SIC Police Scotland submission to IOCCO Inquiry: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 5 February 2015, Mr Andrew Picken asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for a copy of Police Scotland’s response to the IOCCO inquiry into the use of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to identify journalistic sources. This decision finds that Police Scotland failed to comply with Mr Picken’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 071 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550851

Mackinnon v Education Scotland: SIC 23 Jun 2015

SIC Information on HMIE Inspection – On 28 January 2015, Mr MacKinnon asked Education Scotland for correspondence about a school inspection which had taken place in 2008 and reported on in 2009. Education Scotland informed Mr MacKinnon that it did not hold some of the information. Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted this.

[2015] ScotIC 092 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550863

W and West Lothian Council: SIC 3 Jun 2015

Housing Allocations Policy: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescale – On 20 January 2015, Ms W asked West Lothian Council (the Council) for information about the Council’s current/future housing allocations policy. This decision finds that the Council failed to comply with Ms W’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

[2015] ScotIC 074 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550870

May and Perth and Kinross Council: SIC 17 Jun 2015

SIC Local Government Elections – On 19 September 2014, Mr May asked Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) for information relating to the costs and provision of services for local government elections in 2012/13.
The Council responded, advising Mr May that it could only respond to one element of his request as it considered the remainder to be information held by the Returning Officer, not subject to the terms of FOISA. Following a review, Mr May remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had failed to respond to Mr May’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. This was because the information requested was held by the Council in its own right. The Council also failed to respond to Mr May’s requirement for review within the statutory timeframe.
As all of the information identified as falling within the scope of this request was supplied to Mr May during her investigation, the Commissioner did not require the Council to take any action.

[2015] ScotIC 078 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550867

Chappell and Borders Health Board: SIC 12 Jun 2015

Policies and procedures: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 30 December 2014, Dr Chappell asked Borders Health Board (NHS Borders) for information about policies and procedures to deal with the protection of staff and patients if staff are diagnosed as suffering from an infection. This decision finds that NHS Borders failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).
The decision also finds that NHS Borders failed to comply with Dr Chappell’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 070 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550846

Mr and Mrs M and Scottish Prison Service (ICC Discussion of A Complaint): SIC 19 Jun 2015

On 14 April 2014 Mr and Mrs M asked the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) for information held in relation to the Internal Complaints Committee’s (ICC’s) discussion of a particular complaint.
The SPS responded, withholding the information as personal data whose disclosure would breach the data protection principles. Following a review, Mr and Mrs M remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SPS had responded to Mr and Mrs M’s request for information properly, in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 087 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550849

John Middleton and West Lothian Council (Social Work Report: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales): SIC 26 Jun 2015

SIC Social Work Report: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales
On 26 January 2015, Mr Middleton asked West Lothian Council (the Council) forinformation about a social work report carried out in 2014. 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 Middleton’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 098 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550847

Forbes v Transport Scotland: SIC 13 Feb 2015

Government funding for Prestwick Airport
On 19 June 2014, Mr Forbes asked Transport Scotland for information regarding Scottish Government funding for Prestwick Airport. On receiving no response, Mr Forbes asked for a review. Transport Scotland responded by disclosing some information and withholding the remainder under the exemption relating to the effective conduct of public affairs (section 30(c) of FOISA). Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted this.

[2015] ScotIC 023 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.543117

Company A Limited and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission: SIC 13 Feb 2015

SIC Information concerning the SLCC’s investigation procedures
On 6 August 2014, Company A Limited (Company A) asked the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (the SLCC) for information concerning the SLCC’s investigation procedures. The SLCC notified Company A that it did not hold the information it had requested.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SLCC had partially failed to respond to Company A’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.
The Commissioner was satisfied that the SLCC correctly notified Company A that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of parts (ii) and (iii) of the request.
In relation to part (i) of the request, the Commissioner found that the SLCC had incorrectly given notice that it did not hold any relevant information.
The Commissioner required the SLCC to issue a new review response to Company A in relation to part (i) of its request.

[2015] ScotIC 022 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.543110

University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Aug 2013

The complainant has requested various information relating to the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust’s (the Trust) histopathology/pathology services. The Trust refused to comply with the request as it considered it `vexatious under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 14 FOIA in this case. It is not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50471080
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.528616

Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Jan 2014

The complainant has requested information relating to grass cutting activities in Northumberland. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumberland County Council (NCC) has provided all the information it holds. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50497100
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.527389

Calday Grange Grammar School (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jun 2011

The complainant made a number of requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for various sets of minutes from the school. The school ultimately provided the complainant with some of the information he requested but made some redactions to the information provided. The complainant was dissatisfied with the redactions made to two sets of the minutes he had requested. The redactions were made under sections 40(2) and 22 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that section 22 was incorrectly applied to both sets of minutes. However he finds that the school was correct to make the redactions under section 40(2) to one of the sets of minutes but was incorrect in applying this exemption to make the redactions to the other set of minutes.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 22 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50320751
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.530514

Sweden and Turco v Council and Others (Law Governing The Institutions): ECJ 29 Nov 2007

Where a member state submitted documents to a Community institution requesting that such docments be not disclosed to a third party, that request was to be treated as the beginning of a process of the institution asking whether they should not be disclosed and was not conclusive.

C-39/05, [2007] EUECJ C-39/05 – O, C-52/05, [2007] EUECJ C-52/05 – O, Times 11-Jan-2008, [2008] EUECJ C-39/05, C-39/05P
Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
European
Cited by:
See Also – Turco and Kingdom of Sweden (supported by Denmark, Finland and The Netherlands) v Council of the European Union (supported by Commission of the European Communities and United Kingdom) ECJ 1-Jul-2008
ECJ Appeals Access to documents of the institutions Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 Legal opinion. . .
Cited – Office of Communications v The Information Commissioner SC 27-Jan-2010
The parties disputed the publication of materials relating to the exact placement of mobile phone masts. The operators wanted the information excepted from disclosure for fear of criminal acts and also said that disclosure would breach their . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.262087

Transport for London (Other): ICO 14 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to the number of trains that were taken out of service due to graffiti and any information Transport for London (TfL) held on how long those trains remained in service with graffiti, before being taken out of service and cleaned. TfL ultimately explained that it did not hold the requested information. However this was outside the 20 working day, statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL breached section 10(1) by failing to confirm that the information was not held within 20 working days. However, as TfL did ultimately did clarify the information was not held, the Commissioner does not require it to take any further action.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2019] UKICO fs50835302
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.643523

Transport for London (Other): ICO 12 Aug 2021

The complainant requested information from Transport for London (TfL) relating to a number of policies/handbooks, the number of employees per area, the number of members with disabilities per area, disability impact assessments per area and various questions in two requests made on the same day. TfL aggregated the requests and refused to provide the requested information citing section 12(1) FOIA – the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. It did not accept that several parts of the request fell under the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has appropriately cited section 12. She has also concluded that TfL has not breached section 16 FOIA because it provided advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
FOI 12(1): Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-64683
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.669473

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

The complainant requested information from Cornwall Council (‘the council’) relating to a particular property. The council transferred the requests to Cornwall Housing Limited (‘Cornwall Housing’). Cornwall Housing provided some information but subsequently said that the requests were vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’). The complainant argued that the information was held by the council. The Commissioner decided that the council was wrong to claim that the information requested would only be held by Cornwall Housing for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore investigated whether any additional information was held by the council beyond that already made available. The Commissioner found that further information was held by the council. The Commissioner found breaches of section 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the FOIA for the failure to confirm that information was held and to provide it within 20 working days. There are no steps to take.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 14: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50554397
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.555390

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 25 Nov 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to Lender Option Borrowing Option loans. Cornwall Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemptions for prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2)) and information provided in confidence (section 41). The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Council correctly engaged the exemption under section 43(2) but that the public interest favours disclosing the withheld information and failed to demonstrate that the exemption under section 41 is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the agreements specified in part 7 of the request. 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

[2015] UKICO FS50592253
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.556686

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 23 Jan 2017

The complainant has requested information relating to a Planning Contravention Notice. Cornwall Council initially withheld the information under the exception for personal data, regulation 13 of the EIR but during the Commissioner’s investigation it revised its position to withhold the information under the exception for the course of justice – regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

[2017] UKICO FER0646553
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.579749

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 19 Jul 2017

The complainant has requested statistics about adoption support provided by Cornwall Council. The Council refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The complainant subsequently contested the Council’s refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12(1), and has complied with the requirement of section 16(1) to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2017/0153 struck out.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Not upheld

[2017] UKICO FS50648564
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.593833

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 26 Jul 2017

The complainant has requested a copy of the Integrated Waste Management Contract for Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre at St Dennis, Cornwall. Cornwall Council disclosed information during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation and withheld other information under the exception for adverse affect to commercial confidentiality – regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to some of the requested information and the public interest favours maintaining the exception in this case. She has, however decided that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(e) in relation to other elements of the withheld information. The council also failed to issue a refusal notice within the statutory time limit and breached regulation 14(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information identified in the confidential annex to this decision notice.
EIR 12(5)(e): Partly upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld

[2017] UKICO FER0658893
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.593832

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 16 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to a property advertisement. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Cornwall Council does not hold the requested information. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50581039
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.555783

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 4 Oct 2016

ICO The complainant has requested the location of a named council officer on a given day, reports relating to a specified planning application, and correspondence between the named council officer and third parties. Cornwall Council (the council) initially withheld the location of the officer under regulation 13 as it considered that it was personal data, it provided some information and withheld other material under regulation 12(4)(b) as it would be manifestly unreasonable to provide the information. The complainant asked the Commissioner to investigate the application of regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on the exception in this case to withhold the requested information. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0628339
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.572849

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 12 Jan 2015

The complainant requested a report into the failure of a specific project called Tourism and Rural Access in Cornwall (‘TRAC’). Cornwall Council (‘the council’) refused to provide the information, using the exception under 12(4)(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). This exception concerns information that relates to material that is still in the course of completion, unfinished documents or incomplete data. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council published the final report and disclosed a copy of the draft report held at the time of the request to the complainant. The Commissioner has found procedural breaches of regulation 5(2) and 14(2) of the EIR. He does not require any steps to be taken.
EIR 5: Not upheld EIR 12.4.d: Upheld EIR 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0551618
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.554697

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 17 Sep 2015

Following a series of earlier requests, complaints and accusations of corruption over the council and Cornwall Housing’s housing policies the complainant requested details of a property which the council had advertised for let. The council applied section 14 to the request and refused to respond further. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 14(1) to the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50588371
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.555784

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 21 Aug 2017

The complainant has requested specific social care records relating to a deceased person. Cornwall Council withheld the requested information under section 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the requested information under section 41(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 41: Not upheld

[2017] UKICO FS50668967
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.593929

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

The complainants requested information from Cornwall Council (‘the council’) relating to land adjacent to a holiday park. The council refused to respond to the requests because it considered that they were manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’) and the public interest did not favour disclosure. The Commissioner considered that regulation 12(4)(b) was correctly applied to some of the information requested but not all of it. In relation to the information that was not excepted, the Commissioner found a breach of regulation 5(2) for the failure to respond appropriately to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to respond to the request dated 11 August 2014 by either providing the information or relying on an exception other than regulation 12(4)(b). The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Partly upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50562261
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.555463

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 29 Jun 2016

The complainant made a number of requests for information relating to complaints made about care providers working with the council. The council responded to the majority of requests however it refused a number and applied section 12 (exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 12 to the requests. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50613709
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.568291

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 27 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested recorded information from Cornwall Council which concerns an application for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use Development at for land at Gilbert’s Coombe, Redruth, Cornwall. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Council has correctly applied Regulation 13 to most of the personal data contained in the information it previously sent to the complainant and that it has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(b) in respect of information to which legal professional privilege can be ascribed. The Commissioner requires Cornwall Council to reconsider the extent to which it has redacted personal data from the information it previously sent to the complainant. The focus of its reconsideration should be the seniority of some of the officers named in those documents. The Commissioner also requires the Council to provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in respect of the redactions made to a certificate concerning the burial of a deceased person’s ashes. It should take this action under duty provided by Regulation 9(1) of the EIR. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 9: Upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Partly upheld EIR 13: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0558296
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.555285

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 5 Jan 2015

ICO Local government (District council)
The complainant has requested recorded information concerning works carried out on road drains associated with the flooding of the complainant’s property. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Council has properly applied Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to two of the complainant’s requests on the grounds that they are manifestly unreasonable. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2014/0024 withdrawn.
EIR 12.4.b: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0549531
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.554696

C, Regina (on The Application of) v Northumberland County Council and Another: Admn 23 Jul 2015

The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Defendant to have a policy of retaining child protection records for a period of 35 years after a case has been closed. The Defendant contended that it was; the Claimant and the Information Commissioner, as an Interested Party, contended that it was not.

Simon J
[2015] EWHC (Admin) 2134
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550593

Davis and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others: Admn 17 Jul 2015

The applicants said that section 1 of the 2014 Act was unlawful in that it went against decisions of the European Court.
Held: Section 1 was indeed inconsistent with European Union Law. Section 1, of the Act should be disapplied: (1) insofar as access to and use of communications data retained pursuant to a retention notice is permitted for purposes other than the prevention and detection of serious offences or the conduct of criminal prosecutions relating to such offences; and
(2) insofar as access to the data is not made dependent on a prior review by a court or an independent administrative body whose decision limits access to the use of the data to what is strictly necessary for the purpose of attaining the objective pursued.

Bean LJ, Collins J
[2015] WLR(D) 318, [2015] EWHC 2092 (Admin)
Bailii, WLRD
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 7 88, Directive 97/66/EC, Directive 2002/58/EC, Directive 2006/24/EC, Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 1
Citing:
Cited – Digital Rights Ireland v The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources etc ECJ 8-Apr-2014
ECJ Grand Chamber – Electronic communications – Directive 2006/24/EC – Publicly available electronic communications services or public communications networks services – Retention of data generated or processed . .
Cited – The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd SC 21-Nov-2012
The Union challenged the right of the respondent to resell tickets to international rugby matches. The tickets were subject to a condition rendering it void on any resale at above face value. They said that the respondent had advertised tickets in . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Davis MP and Others CA 20-Nov-2015
The Secretary of State appealed against a ruling that section 1 of the 2014 Act was inconsistent wih European law.
Held: The following questions were referred to the CJEU:
(1) Did the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland intend to lay down . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Police, Information, European, Human Rights

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550378

Dennekamp v Parliament: ECFI 15 Jul 2015

Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme – Refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – Article 8(b) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 – Transfer of personal data – Conditions concerning the necessity of having the data transferred and the risk that the data subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced

T-115/13, [2015] EUECJ T-115/13
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

European, Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550315