Category: Information

Ofcom (Central Government): ICO 7 Apr 2020

The complainant has requested information about ‘Leaving Neverland: Michael Jackson and Me’ – a documentary that had been broadcast on Channel 4. Ofcom has withheld information the complainant has requested under section 44(1) of the FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information Ofcom is withholding is exempt from disclosure under section 44(1). The Commissioner does not require Ofcom to take any remedial steps.
FOI 44: Complaint not upheld

[2020] UKICO fs50868934
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.651526

Ballyclare Secondary School (Education): ICO 22 Jul 2021

The complainant has requested minutes of Board of Governors’ meetings over a specified time period from Ballyclare Secondary School (‘the School’). The School did not provide these within the timescale as set out in section 10(1) of the FOIA and to date some of the requested information has still not been provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. – To provide the complainant with the outstanding requested information as specified in the Annex to this notice. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO ic-46228
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.669264

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 14 Sep 2021

The complainant has requested access to two closed files relating to a historic murder. The National Archives (‘TNA’) withheld the information citing section 38(1)(a) (health and safety) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged and that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. Therefore TNA is entitled to rely upon section 38(1)(a) as a basis for refusing to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner requires TNA to take no further steps.
FOI 38: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-97448
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.669568

Halton Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 26 Feb 2020

The complainant has requested a report relating to SEND provision in the borough. Halton Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Halton Borough Council has correctly applied the exemption in section 43(2) to withhold some of the requested information but that, in relation to some of the information, the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information identified in the confidential annex.
FOI 43(2): Complaint partly upheld

[2020] UKICO fs50861128
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.653492

The Alzheimers Society (Enforcement Notices, Charitable and Voluntary) 2016-23: ICO 7 Jan 2016

Triforce Recruitment Ltd has been prosecuted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court for committing an offence of failing to notify under section 17 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Company, who provide career opportunities for service leavers and ex-forces personnel, was found guilty in its absence for the offence of processing data without having an entry in the data protection register. The company was fined pounds 5,000 and ordered to pay costs of pounds 489.85 and a victim surcharge of pounds 120.

[2016] UKICO 2016-23
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.559015

Z and Dumfries and Galloway Council: SIC 16 Mar 2015

On 13 February 2014, Mr Z asked Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) for a variety of information concerning work carried out at a residential property.
The Council responded by disclosing some information but withholding other information under the EIRs. Following a review, Mr Z remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Council disclosed most of the withheld information but continued to withhold a document which was an internal communication. It also continued to withhold some information on the grounds that it was personal data and disclosure would breach the data protection principles.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the public interest test favoured disclosure of the information in the internal communication. She also found that the Council correctly withheld the personal data.

[2015] ScotIC 034 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545640

Mackay and Scottish Borders Council: SIC 31 Mar 2015

On 17 April 2014, Mr Mackay asked Scottish Borders Council (the Council) for information relating to searches carried out in relation to previous requests to the Council and decisions by the Commissioner.
The Council told Mr Mackay that it did not hold the requested information. During the investigation, the Council notified the Commissioner that it did hold information falling within the scope the request and redacted information was provided to Mr Mackay. As a result, the Commissioner finds that the Council was incorrect to inform Mr Mackay earlier that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner also recorded her disappointment at the Council’s handling of the request.

[2015] ScotIC 046 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545637

D and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 1 Apr 2015

Regime review for a specified prison hall – On 3 April 2014, Mr D asked the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) for information relating to a regime review for a specified prison hall. The SPS provided some information, confirming on review that it did not hold any further information.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the SPS had provided Mr D with all of the information it held and which fell within the scope of his request.

[2015] ScotIC 047 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545642

X and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 30 Mar 2015

Information relating to a tender – On 2 September 2014, Mr X asked the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) for information concerning a tender.
The SPS responded by disclosing some information. The SPS withheld some information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure in terms of sections 36(2) (Confidentiality) and 38(1)(b) (Personal data) of FOISA. Additionally, the SPS informed Mr X that it did not hold some of the requested information.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SPS had partially failed to respond to Mr X’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. The Commissioner found that some of the withheld information did not comprise personal data and required the SPS to disclose it to Mr X. In respect of the information that did comprise personal data, the Commissioner was satisfied that the SPS was entitled to withhold it under the exemption in section 38(1)(b) of FOISA. The Commissioner also accepted that the SPS did not hold any recorded information concerning individuals contacted by telephone.

[2015] ScotIC 041 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545639

Mclelland and Scottish Ministers: SIC 27 Feb 2015

SIC On 27 January 2014, Mr McLelland asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information about dentists who had obtained grants under the Scottish Dental Access Initiative (SDAI) from 2007 to the current date.
The Ministers disclosed some information, withheld some information, and notified Mr McLelland that they did not hold some of the information he had asked for. Following a review, Mr McLelland remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Ministers disclosed additional information to Mr McLelland, withholding only the names of the dentists who obtained grants or who had to repay some of the grant monies received.
The Commissioner found that the Ministers had partially failed to respond to Mr McLelland’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. The Ministers wrongly withheld the names of the dentists who had obtained a grant under the exemption in section 38(1)(b), but correctly applied this exemption to the names of dentists who had to repay some or all of the grant monies. She required the Ministers to disclose the names of all dentists who had obtained (but not had to repay) a SDAI grant.

[2015] ScotIC 027 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545620

Findlay v Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 18 Feb 2015

On 9 July 2014, Ms Findlay asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for copies of any email, letter or notes of any phone call about an event she had organised. Police Scotland disclosed some information to Ms Findlay, but did not provide her with copies of any documents. Following a review, Ms Findlay remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner found that Police Scotland failed to respond to Ms Findlay’s request for information in accordance with FOISA. She found that Police Scotland did not, in fact, hold any information falling within the scope of Ms Findlay’s request. In failing to tell her this, Police Scotland had failed to comply with section 17 of FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 025 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545621

Willems v Burgemeester van Nuth; similar: ECJ 16 Apr 2015

EJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Biometric passport – Biometric data – Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 – Article 1(3) – Article 4(3) – Use of data collected for purposes other than the issue of passports and travel documents – Establishment and use of databases containing biometric data – Legal guarantees – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 7 and 8 – Directive 95/46/EC – Articles 6 and 7 – Right to privacy – Right to the protection of personal data – Application to identity cards

L. Bay Larsen, P
C-446/12, [2015] EUECJ C-446/12, ECLI:EU:C:2015:238
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004, Directive 95/46/EC, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 6 7

European, Human Rights, Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545456

Ministry of Justice (Central Government): ICO 14 Sep 2021

The complainant has requested information relating to an amendment of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)/ County Court Money Claims Centre (CCMCC). The Commissioner’s decision is that Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has correctly cited section 14(2) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-86836
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.669567

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

The complainant requested from Newcastle City Council (‘the Council’), copies of specified communications between the Council and Adderstone Group and it’s representatives. By the date of this notice, the Council had not provided a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-119913
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.669569

Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 11 Oct 2021

The complainant requested various information from the Nottinghamshire Police relating to speed limit enforcement in and around Southwell. Nottinghamshire Police had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Nottinghamshire Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation – issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. Nottinghamshire Police must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-126818
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.669618

Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others: CA 21 Dec 2021

Appeal and a cross-appeal against a decision of Jay J by which he granted the claimant permission to serve five media defendants in their jurisdictions of domicile in the United States of America with proceedings for libel and limited claims for misuse of private information, but refused permission to serve a variety of other claims advanced by the claimant. The defendants’ appeal challenges the grant of permission to serve the libel claim. It raises issues about s 9 of the Defamation Act 2013, which contains a new test for jurisdiction over libel claims against those domiciled abroad. The claimant’s cross-appeal challenges the refusal to allow service of claims in data protection and malicious falsehood. It raises issues about the territorial scope of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and requires us to consider whether the Judge was right to find that the claimant’s malicious falsehood claims are untenable.

Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the Queen’S Bench Division,
Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing,
And,
Lord Justice Warby
[2021] EWCA Civ 1952
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others QBD 15-Jan-2021
Claimant’s contested application to serve-out. . .
See Also – Soriano v Forensic News Llc and Others QBD 13-Apr-2021
Claim in defamation and misuse of private information. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Jurisdiction, Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.670640

Kololo v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis: QBD 9 Mar 2015

The claimant sought disclosure of information under the 1998 Act. The defendant said that the application was an abuse of process and an attempt to circumvent the 2003 Act. The claimant had been convicted of involvement in kidnapping and murder in Somalia and was to appeal aganst a sentence of death. The claimant said that he wanted the information so that he could review it and correct any inaccuracies. The defendant replied that his true purpose was to use it in connection with foreign criminal proceedings.
Held: Such an additional purpose was not an abuse. The data should be supplied. The court had a quite general discretion whether to order compliance with a subject access request, but that discretion had to be exercised in a proportionate way with a view to giving effect to the purpose of the Act.

Dingemans J
[2015] EWHC 600 (QB), [2015] WLR(D) 111
Bailii, WLRD
Data Protection Act 1998 1(1) 2 7, Crime (International Co-Operation) Act 2003, Directive 95/46/EC
Citing:
Cited – YS v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel ECJ 17-Jul-2014
ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Articles 2, 12 and 13 – Concept of ‘personal data’ – Scope of the right of . .
Cited – Callery v Gray (1) and (2) HL 27-Jun-2002
Success fees and ATE premiums were recoverable
Objection was made to a claimed uplift of 20% sought by the plaintiff’s solicitors. The defendant’s insurers said that there had been little at risk for them.
Held: The system of conditional fees insurance had been introduced to remedy defects . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544299

Beggs v The Scottish Information Commissioner: SCS 3 Mar 2015

The claimant had requested information about the Scottish Prison Service. He now complained after an order which said that the remaining undisclosed information was readily available from alternate sources.

Lord Carloway LJC
[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 17
Bailii
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 1

Scotland, Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544198

Guseva v Bulgaria: ECHR 17 Feb 2015

Article 10-1
Freedom to impart information
Freedom to receive information
Failure by mayor to comply with final judgments granting the applicant right to access information: violation
Facts – The applicant, a member and representative of an association active in the area of animal rights protection, obtained three final Supreme Administrative Court’s judgments requiring a mayor to provide her with information relating to the treatment of stray animals found on the streets of the town over which he officiated. The mayor did not comply with the judgments. In her application to the European Court the applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the mayor’s conduct was in breach of her right to receive and impart information.
Law – Article 10: The applicant had sought access to information about the treatment of animals in order to exercise her role of informing the public on this matter of general interest and to contribute to public debate. The existence of her right of access to such information had been recognised both in the domestic legislation and in three final Supreme Administrative Court judgments. Therefore, the gathering of information with a view to its subsequent provision to the public fell within the ambit of the applicant’s freedom of expression.
Although the applicant had lodged the application in her private capacity and not on behalf of the association she represented, the information she sought to obtain was directly related to her work in the association. Consequently, she had been involved in the legitimate gathering of information of public interest for the purpose of contributing to public debate. Thus, the mayor’s failure to act in accordance with final court judgments and provide her with the information had constituted a direct interference with her right to receive and impart information.
At the material time, the judgments were final and enforceable under domestic law and the mayor’s failure to comply with them was thus unlawful. However, the national judicial practice accepted that the domestic law itself provided no clear time-frame for enforcement thus leaving the question to the good will of the administrative body responsible for the implementation of the judgment. Such a lack of a clear time-frame for enforcement created unpredictability as to the likely time of enforcement, which, in the applicant’s case, never materialised. The applicable domestic legislation therefore lacked the requisite foreseeability resulting in the interference with the applicant’s Article 10 rights not being ‘prescribed by law’.
Conclusion: violation (five votes to two).
The Court also found a violation of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 10 as there had been no effective remedies capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaint and offering reasonable prospects of success.
Article 41: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

6987/07 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 237
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 10-1

Human Rights

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543763

Crown Prosecution Service (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Jun 2011

The complainant requested information concerning nine cases in which the defendants were convicted of crimes, including murder and manslaughter, relating to the deaths of disabled people. The public authority refused the requests, citing the exemptions provided by sections 30(1)(c) (information held by the public authority for the purposes of any criminal proceedings which it has the power to conduct) and 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner finds that the public authority cited the exemption provided by section 40(2) correctly and it is not required to disclose the information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50353638
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.530526

Greater Manchester Police (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Sep 2005

The complainant requested information relating to police vehicle safety checks from GMP in a letter dated 6 January 2005. GMP responded to 2 of 7 questions but when asked by the complainant for a response to the remaining questions, they refused. The ICO wrote to GMP insisting that they respond to the request. GMP did so on the 10 May 2005 and provided all of the requested information; however a breach of the Act has occurred because the response was received outside the 20 working day limit.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2005] UKICO FS50067937
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.533257

Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 21 Feb 2011

The complainant submitted a request for information on income generated from ‘section 106’ agreements under a certain policy. The Council disclosed some information to the complainant under the Freedom of Information Act, but this did not include all of the information held. After the intervention of the Commissioner, the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR, and stated that the requested information would only be provided if the complainant paid a fee of 925 pounds. The Commissioner explained to the Council that the activities it had taken into account could not be included in a fees notice. The Council then confirmed that it relied upon the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) which applies to manifestly unreasonable requests. However, the Council has failed to provide any arguments which explain why the request is manifestly unreasonable and so the Commissioner finds that the exception was applied incorrectly. The Commissioner finds that the Council has breached regulation 8(3) by issuing an unreasonable fees notice, and regulation 8(4) by failing to issue this within the statutory time for compliance. The Council has breached regulation 11(4) by failing to conduct an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner also finds that the Council has breached regulation 14(1) by failing to provide a refusal notice, regulation 14(2) by failing to provide a refusal notice within the statutory time for compliance, regulation 14(3)(a) by failing to cite the exception it relied upon regulation 14(3)(b) by failing to conduct a public interest test in relation to the exception, and regulation 14(5) by failing to inform the complainant enforcement and appeal provisions of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to either disclose the requested information to the complainant or issue a valid refusal notice. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 8 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 8 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50305666
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.530230

Goring Parish Council (Decision Notice) FS50525819: ICO 26 Mar 2014

The complainant requested from Goring Parish Council (‘the Parish Council’), following the cancellation of a Parish Council meeting, a copy of the agenda for that meeting and a copy of the agenda with the word cancelled overlying the text. The Parish Council provided a response to the first part of the complainant’s request but did not provide a response to the second part of the request until after the involvement of the Commissioner. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council has breached section 1 of FOIA by not confirming that it held information falling within the scope of the second part of the complainant’s request and by not providing that information to him by the time of the completion of the internal review. It also breached section 10 by not providing to the complainant the information falling within the second part of his request within 20 working days of receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Parish Council to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2014] UKICO FS50525819
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.527587

Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice) FS50409248: ICO 21 Sep 2011

The complainant made a number of requests for information to Northumberland County Council relating to proposals to install bus stops. In relation to the majority of the points in the request, the council did not clearly state whether or not it held recorded information of the nature requested. Instead, it provided a number of written statements. In relation to one request, the council provided a copy of part of a document. When the Commissioner investigated, the council clarified that it did not hold the majority of the requested information, although it did identify that it held a limited amount of additional information which it agreed to provide the complainant. The Commissioner found breaches of 5(1), 5(2), 14(2) and 14(3)(a) of the EIR. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50409248
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.530879

The Applicants and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 4 Mar 2020

The Council was asked for information relating to a Planning Law seminar and its decision to amend AMC (applications for approval of matters specified in conditions) planning fees.
The Council provided some information, but withheld other information on the basis it was internal communications and was subject to legal advice privilege.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had complied with the EIRs in responding to the request.

[2020] ScotIC 044 – 2020
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.654016

Hastings Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 2 Jul 2020

The complainant requested information relating to the erection of a fence on the boundary between a holiday park and Ecclesbourne Glen. The council refused the request on the basis he had asked questions rather than made requests for recorded information. On review it directed the requestor to its planning portal, and responded directly to the questions asked, but it did not provide any further recorded information. The complainant considers that further information should have been provided to him. The complainant also complained about the time which the council took to respond to his request for review. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. She has, however, decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 11(4) in that it did not provide a response to the complainant’s request for review within 40 working days. She has also decided that it did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 14(1) as it did not state that it was applying the exception in Regulation 12(4)(a) to the request in its response. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
EIR 11(4): Complaint upheld EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 14(3): Complaint upheld

[2020] UKICO fs50891120
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.653753

The National Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another (Procedural Matters): Admn 27 Apr 2018

Lord Justice Singh
[2018] HC 976 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – The National Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another Admn 27-Apr-2018
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Police

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.614963

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

The complainant has requested information from Wealden District Council (the council) concerning legal advice sought by the council regarding the 5 Year Housing Land Supply. The council refused to provide the majority of the requested information stating that it was legally privileged and disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice. It stated that regulation 12(5)(b) therefore applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) in this case, and has therefore complied with the EIR.
EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

[2017] UKICO FER0662407
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.593909

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

The complainant has requested correspondence between the Council and consultants commissioned to produce its Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The Council provided some information, but withheld other information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR on the basis that it related to information still in the course of completion and unfinished documents. The Commissioner’s decision is that all the withheld information engages the exception; however in respect of a limited amount of that information the public interest favours its disclosure. This information has been identified in the confidential annex which accompanies this notice. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information identified in the confidential annexe. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(4)(d): Partly upheld

[2016] UKICO FER0618404
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.572917

Wealden District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 20 Nov 2017

The complainant has requested the plan of a car-park made by a Community Officer whilst issuing Excess Charge Notices. Wealden District Council disclosed information in response. The complainant contested that the information provided was not that requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all relevant held information in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2017] UKICO FS50669332
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.602468

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 6 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested the name and address of a specified private landlord. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council is entitled to withhold the requested information in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585183
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.555921

Wealden District Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50580537: ICO 16 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to transaction numbers for service charges and what these numbers relate to. The Council refused this request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50580537
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.555865

Wealden District Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50580530: ICO 16 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information on Wealden District Council’s housing register particularly in relation to sheltered housing. The Council refused this request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, taking into account the context and nature of the request it demonstrates the necessary characteristics of a vexatious request and he accepts that the Council has correctly refused it under section 14(1). He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50580530
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.555864

Wealden District Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50580529: ICO 16 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information on the keeping of livestock at Wealden District Council properties. The Council refused this request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, taking into account the context and nature of the request it demonstrates the necessary characteristics of a vexatious request and he accepts that the Council has correctly refused it under section 14(1). He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50580529
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.555863

Guildford Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 17 Feb 2015

The complainant has made a request to Guildford Borough Council (‘the council’) for information relating to hospitality received by two councillors at an event. The council confirmed that no relevant information was held, which the complainant subsequently contested. The Commissioner’s decision is that no relevant information is held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50556219
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.555093

Simpson and Scottish Ministers: SIC 11 Feb 2015

SIC Single Chamber Parliament – On 23 June 2014, Mr Simpson asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information relating to the decision to have a single chamber parliament in the event of independence.
The Ministers failed to respond to the initial request and stated that they held no relevant information following a review. Mr Simpson remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Ministers had properly responded to Mr Simpson’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 021 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543114

Carbiner and Lothian Health Board: SIC 11 Feb 2015

SIC Information regarding an investigation
On 2 December 2013, Mr Carbiner, through his solicitors, asked Lothian Health Board (NHS Lothian) for information relating to any investigation into infection control at a dental practice in North Berwick.
NHS Lothian provided Mr Carbiner with some information, whilst withholding other information.
Following an investigation, during which information further information was disclosed, the Commissioner found that NHS Lothian was entitled to withhold the remaining information as personal data, disclosure of which would breach the data protection principles.

[2015] ScotIC 020 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543113

Liddle and Pickaquoy Centre Trust: SIC 3 Feb 2015

SIC Freedom of information requests: failure to respond within statutory timescales
On 7 September 2014, Mr Liddle asked Pickaquoy Centre Trust (the Trust) for information about its management of Freedom of Information requests. This decision finds that the Trust 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 Trust failed to comply with Mr Liddle’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.
As a review response has now been issued, the Commissioner does not require any further action on the part of the Trust.

[2015] ScotIC 015 – 2015
Bailii
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Scotland, Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543112

Mackinnon and Education Scotland: SIC 10 Feb 2015

SIC HMIE report of Glendinning Terrace Primary School, 2008
On 6 November 2013, Mr MacKinnon asked Education Scotland for information from the report of the inspection of Glendinning Terrace Primary School carried out in 2008 by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE). Education Scotland withheld the information, claiming that disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.
Following a review, which confirmed this decision, Mr MacKinnon remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision. The Commissioner found that Education Scotland had wrongly withheld the information covered by Mr MacKinnon’s request. She required Education Scotland to give Mr MacKinnon the information which had been wrongly withheld.

[2015] ScotIC 017 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543116

Goodfellow Environmental Maintenance Ltd and Perth and Kinross Council: SIC 11 Feb 2015

SIC Road maintenance contract
On 19 March 2014, Goodfellow Environmental Maintenance Ltd. (Goodfellow Ltd.) asked Perth and Kinross Council (the Council) to respond to a 12-part request concerning a road maintenance contract. The Council responded to the request for review. It disclosed some information, withheld other information and stated that it did not hold the remaining information.
The Commissioner investigated the application and found that the Council had:
(i) correctly disclosed the information that it held which was not exempt from disclosure.
(ii) correctly withheld some information that was exempt from disclosure
(iii) failed to let the applicant know when some information covered by the request was likely to be finalised, and
(iv) failed to comply with the statutory timescale for response.

[2015] ScotIC 019 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543111

Kwik Fix Plumbers Ltd (Monetary Penalties): ICO 22 Dec 2014

ICO The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has fined a marketing company based in London andpound;90,000 for continually making nuisance calls targeting vulnerable victims. In several cases, the calls resulted in elderly people being tricked into paying for boiler insurance they didn’t need.

[2014] UKICO 2014-61
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.542910

Parklife Manchester Ltd (Monetary Penalties): ICO 5 Dec 2014

ICO The company behind Manchester’s annual festival, the Parklife Weekender has been fined andpound;70,000 after sending unsolicited marketing text messages.
The text was sent to 70,000 people who had bought tickets to last year’s event, and appeared on the recipients’ mobile phone to have been sent by ‘Mum’.

[2014] UKICO 2014-66
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.542911

Caerphilly County Borough Council (Undertakings): ICO 19 Dec 2014

ICO A council that ordered covert surveillance on a sick employee must review its approach after an Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigation.
The ICO found the Council breached the Data Protection Act when it ordered the surveillance of an employee suspected of fraudulently claiming to be sick

[2014] UKICO 2014-64
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.542908

Optical Express (Westfield) Limited (Enforcement Notices): ICO 6 Jan 2015

ICO An eye care company has been warned by the Information Commissioner’s Office to stop sending out nuisance text messages or face further action.
Over 4,600 people registered concerns about Optical Express (Westfield) Limited in just seven months reporting the unsolicited messages to the Mobile phone networks spam text reporting service indicating they had not given permission for the company to use their details for marketing.
The Glasgow-based business which has branches across the UK had been sending out texts that included details of a competition to win free laser eye surgery.

[2015] UKICO 2015-6
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.542918

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health): ICO 7 Oct 2021

The complainant requested information from the NHS Commissioning Board (‘NHS England’) relating to the pathway/referral process, the Individual Funding Review panel and NHS England’s targets for replying to correspondence from MPs. By the date of this notice, NHS England had not provided a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHS England to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. NHS England must issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. NHS England must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-126709
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.669655

Westminster City Council (Local Government): ICO 8 Sep 2021

The complainant requested information relating to a planning application submitted to Westminster City Council. The Council stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information, nor is it held on the Council’s behalf by another person. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
EIR 3: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-56145
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.669603

Harkanwarjit Dhanju (Prosecutions): ICO 13 Nov 2014

ICO A former pharmacist working for West Sussex Primary Care Trust has been prosecuted for unlawfully accessing the medical records of family members, work colleagues and local health professionals. Harkanwarjit Dhanju was fined andpound;1000, ordered to pay a andpound;100 victim surcharge and andpound;608.30 prosecution costs.

[2014] UKICO 2014-73
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542900

Hot House Roof Company (Enforcement Notices): ICO 12 Nov 2014

ICO The ICO has issued an enforcement notice against Hot House Roof Company ordering them to stop making nuisance marketing calls. The company had failed to honour suppression requests and repeatedly made calls to a number of individuals despite their being TPS registered.

[2014] UKICO 2014-74
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542901