Category: Information

Home Office (Decision Notice): ICO 25 Jan 2011

The complainant requested a number of financial reports concerning grant aid provided by ACPO to the Home Office. The complainant did not receive a substantive response within the statutory time frame and therefore contacted the public authority to request an internal review. The public authority completed the internal review acknowledging the delay in responding and confirmed information was held. The complainant contacted the Commissioner to complain about the handling of his request. During the course of the investigation the public authority responded providing the information to the complainant. The Commissioner finds the public authority to have breached section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) of the Act. He requires no further steps to be taken by the public authority.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50324118
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.530155

London Metropolitan University (Decision Notice): ICO 8 Aug 2006

The complainant requested information relating to a degree course he had commenced at the London Metropolitan University in September 1988. The response initially given to the complainant did not meet the requirements of the Act. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the university provided a refusal notice in line with section 17 of the Act and stated that the complainant’s requests were, for the most part, vexatious, as all of the information requested had been provided to the complainant previously. The Commissioner agrees that these requests were vexatious. The university had conceded that its initial response fell outside the statutory response time and failed to meet the requirements of section 17. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50085398
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.533532

New Forest District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 10 Jan 2011

The complainant requested information relating to the investigation of an alleged benefit fraud. New Forest District Council released some of the requested information but withheld the remainder citing the exemption under section 41(1) of the Act on the grounds that it was information provided in confidence. The Commissioner finds that the exemption at section 41(1) was correctly applied in this case, and requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0034 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50297890
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.530168

Treasury Solicitors (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jul 2006

The complainant requested a variety of information, including information on files and records relating to him and held by the Law Officers, papers generated in the proceedings brought against him under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, and access to all communications between the public authority and named third parties. Part of the information was withheld under sections 30, 31 and 42. After a careful review of the relevant statutes, the information on the file, and submissions received from both parties, the Commissioner has agreed with TSOL that the exemptions cited above are applicable to the requested information, which is therefore exempt from release. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 30 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FAC50070211
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.533524

Plymouth City Council (Monetary Penalty Notice): ICO 22 Nov 2012

A monetary penalty has been served to Plymouth City Council for a serious breach of the seventh data protection principle. A social worker sent part of a report relating to family A, to family B due to printing issues. The photocopied report contained confidential and highly sensitive personal data relating to the two parents and their four children, including of allegations of child neglect in on-going care proceedings.

[2012] UKICO 2012-4
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.530036

Browning v The Information Commissioner, The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: CA 30 Jul 2014

The court was asked: ‘When the First-tier Tribunal is hearing an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner, in what circumstances (if any) can it lawfully adopt a closed material procedure in which a party and his legal representatives are excluded from the hearing or part of it?’

Mauric Kay, Patten, McCombe LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1050, [2014] WLR(D) 346
Bailii, WLRD
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535442

Hayne (Prosecution): ICO 28 Nov 2012

A London barrister has been prosecuted by the ICO for failing to notify under section 17 of the Data Protection Act. Jeanette Hayne pleaded guilty at the hearing on 28 November 2012 but Westminster Magistrates decided to dispose of the case by way of an absolute discharge owing to particular mitigating circumstances. Concluding the hearing, the magistrate warned that those whose profession is to prosecute people for failing to comply with the law must meet their legal obligations.

[2012] UKICO 2012-55
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.530011

Melton Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Nov 2012

The complainant has requested information considered by the Melton Local Development Framework (MLDF) Task Group on 31 August 2011. Melton Borough Council (the council) refused to disclose the documents relying on regulation 12(4)(e) as the information constituted internal communications and the public interest was in favour of maintaining the exception. The council also relied on regulation 12(5)(e) as the information was commercially sensitive. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has engaged the exception at 12(4)(e) and that it was correct to conclude that the public interest is in favour of withholding the information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FER0447142
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.530023

Bretforton Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Nov 2012

The complainant has requested a copy of a computerised burial plan. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did not deal with the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the public authority has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond within the statutory time limit of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any action as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50449559
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.529975

Northamptonshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 28 Nov 2012

The complainant has requested information relating to a contract awarded by Northamptonshire County Council to Millbrook Healthcare. The council provided some information but withheld details of individual unit costings contained within the contract under the commercial interests exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied the commercial interests exemption to the withheld information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50456178
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.530034

South Holland District Council (Local Government): ICO 7 Sep 2020

The complainant has requested information from South Holland District Council (‘the Council’), in relation to the valuation of a property. The Council provided a report but withheld some information from it under certain exemptions of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, since the report related to the complainant’s property at the time, all the information that was requested is the complainant’s own personal data. She therefore finds that the Council was not obliged to supply any information under the FOIA, as any information which the Council holds within the scope of the request would attract the absolute exemption at Section 40(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
FOI 40(1): Complaint not upheld

[2020] UKICO fs50871010
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.653939

Cornwall Council (Local Government) FER0914315: ICO 28 Jul 2020

The complainant has requested information regarding a planning application. Cornwall council withheld in the information in its entirety citing regulation 12(4)(b) – cost of compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cornwall Council has appropriately relied on section 12(4)(b) to withhold the requested information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However it breached regulation 14 in failing to provide a refusal notice within the required timescales. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
EIR 14: Complaint upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld

[2020] UKICO FER0914315
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.653719

Cornwall Council (Local Government) FER0867513: ICO 28 Jul 2020

The complainant has requested information regarding a planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, Cornwall Council has located all the information held in scope of the request. However it breached Regulation 5(2) in failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

[2020] UKICO FER0867513
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.653718

East Hampshire District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 14 Oct 2015

The complainant has made a request to East Hampshire District Council (‘the council’) for information about a planning application. The council confirmed that no information was held, which the complainant disputed. The Commissioner’s decision is that no recorded information is held. However, in failing to provide an internal review, the council has breached regulations 11(3) and 11(4). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
EIR 5(1): Not upheld EIR 11(3): Upheld EIR 11(4): Upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0578507
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.555926

Petersfield Town Council (Local Government (Town Council)): ICO 18 Jun 2015

The complainant has made two requests, on separate dates, for all communications between Hambleton District Council (the council) and an individual, that individuals business and its representatives. The council responded to the two requests separately, but provided the same response to both in that it was withholding the information under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR and could neither confirm nor deny any further communications taking place. Relying on regulation 13(5) of the EIR and 40(5)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), as it considered it would reveal the personal data of the named individual. The complainant is not satisfied with the council refusing his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on regulation 12(5)(b) and was right to neither confirm nor deny the existence of any other communications taking place for both requests. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0064 settled by consent.
EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50581738
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.555523

Flintshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 23 Feb 2015

The complainant asked Flintshire County Council whether it had any objections to the clearance of vegetation from an area surrounding a number of specific Grade II listed buildings and whether it had any objection to the location of a shipping container in one of those buildings. Flintshire County Council initially informed the complainant that it did not hold relevant information, however following the intervention of the Commissioner it subsequently provided information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Flintshire County Council failed to comply with its obligations under regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 5: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50550605
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.555086

Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 26 Oct 2015

The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (‘the Council’) information broadly relating to an agreement between the Council and Newlyn Plc. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA in the following way. It failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50598787
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.555876

Cornwall Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 28 Oct 2015

The complainants requested copies of any evidence held relating to the use of land opposite their land. This was initially refused by Cornwall Council (the council) under section 14(1) of the FOIA as a vexatious request. Following a decision notice by the Commissioner, it was found section 14(1) was not engaged and the council was ordered to issue a new response without relying on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The council issued this new response refusing the request relying on Regulation 12(3) of the EIR as it considered it to be the personal data of a third party. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to refuse the request as third party personal data. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
EIR 12(3): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0589702
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.555911

Newham London Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 24 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested from London Borough of Newham (the ‘Council’) a copy of a specific councillor’s report which concerns the accounts in relation to the East Ham Campus. The Council confirmed that it does hold the information but it does not hold the information on the Council’s behalf. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the information requested for its own purposes. By virtue of section 3(2) of the FOIA, the Council is not required to disclose the information it holds. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 3: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50584680
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.555832

Northamptonshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 8 Sep 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to Corby Parkland’s Gateway Car Park and the ‘Operational Guidance to local authorities: parking policy and enforcement’. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire County Council has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50579244
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.555835

European Commission v Kingdom of Spain: ECJ 1 Jul 2010

ECJ (Judgment Of The Court (Sixth Chamber)) – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 13 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) – Data accompanying the application – Data use and protection – Confidentiality.

C-363/09, [2010] EUECJ C-363/09
Bailii

European, Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535385

Ryan and West Lothian Council: SIC 15 Jul 2014

Inspection and repair records – On 2 October 2013, Morisons Solicitors, on behalf of their client Mr Ryan, asked West Lothian Council (the Council) for information regarding the inspection and repair of a specific footpath. The Council responded by providing some information to Mr Ryan, while stating that it did not hold further information. During the investigation, the Council notified the Commissioner that it held additional information and that it had now been provided to Mr Ryan. 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 Ryan.

[2014] ScotIC 154 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535268

Banknock Haggs and Longcroft Community Council and Transport Scotland: SIC 16 Jul 2014

Land transaction – On 10 October 2013, Banknock Haggs and Longcroft Community Council (BHLCC) asked Transport Scotland for information about a land transaction. Transport Scotland refused to make the information available and informed BHLCC that the request was manifestly unreasonable. BHLCC did not accept this and so applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted that the request was manifestly unreasonable and that, as a result, Transport Scotland was entitled to refuse to make the information available to BHLCC.

[2014] ScotIC 157 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535266

Dr J Wallace Hinton and Scottish Public Services Ombudsman: SIC 17 Jul 2014

SIC Complaint investigation – On 8 October 2013, Dr Hinton asked the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (the SPSO) for information sent to and received from Glasgow City Council during a complaint investigation. The SPSO withheld the information under section 26(a) of FOISA, on the basis that its disclosure was prohibited by other legislation.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner founds that the SPSO was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 26(a) of FOISA (on the basis of the statutory prohibition) and regulation 10(5)(d) of the EIRs (on grounds of confidentiality). She found that some of the information was environmental information and therefore should have been handled under the EIRs.

[2014] ScotIC 158 – 2014
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535267

BBC (Decision Notice): ICO 13 May 2013

The complainants have requested information concerning the number of teams that take part in University Challenge each year, the number that are from Oxford and Cambridge colleges and how many Scottish stage productions and exhibitions have been reviewed in the Review Show programme since its move to Glasgow. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50483184
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.528234

South Yorkshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 12 Oct 2021

The complainant requested information from South Yorkshire Police (‘SYP’) about claims received for misfeasance in public office under the ‘Hillsborough Victims’ Misfeasance Litigation’ group action. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires SYP 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.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-126387
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.669670

Department of Health and Social Care (Central Government): ICO 18 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) to disclose the names of 47 companies which were awarded contracts via the ‘high-priority lane’ for procuring PPE. Initially the DHSC withheld the information under section 43 of the FOIA (commercial interests). At the internal review stage the DHSC revised its position, withdrew the application of section 43 of the FOIA and confirmed that the requested information would be published in due course. To the date of this notice, the DHSC has not disclosed the requested information, nor advised the Commissioner that it considers it is otherwise exempt by virtue of another exemption. The DHSC has therefore failed to comply with its obligations under FOIA. It has also breached section 1 and 10 of the FOIA. It failed to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt and failed to disclose information, to which the complainant was entitled under section 1, in the same timeframe. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
FOI 43: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-94513
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.669625

MacKinnon v Scottish Public Services Ombudsman: SIC 9 Jul 2014

Complaint information – On 6 November 2013, Mr MacKinnon asked the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (the SPSO) for information relating to specific complaints made against the HMIE/Education Scotland and legal advice. The SPSO told Mr MacKinnon that it did not hold some of the information he had asked for and that, in all other respects, his requests were repeated (which meant that it was not obliged to comply with them). Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted these conclusions.

[2014] ScotIC 153 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535097

Protect Wild Scotland v Scottish Ministers: SIC 13 Jun 2014

SIC Scottish Fish Farms Annual Production Survey – On 16 October 2013, Protect Wild Scotland (PWS) asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for the information from the Scottish Fish Farms Annual Production Survey 2012 questionnaire returns. The Ministers withheld the information under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004, as they considered disclosure would substantially prejudice the interests of the providers of the information (who were not obliged to provide it and who did not consent to disclosure). Following a review, PWS remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had dealt with PWS’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs.

[2014] ScotIC 128 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535090

MacKinnon v Education Scotland: SIC 9 Jul 2014

Pre-inspection and school visit reports – On 4 November 2013, Mr MacKinnon asked Education Scotland for pre-inspection and school visit reports about a named school, received from Highland Council. Education Scotland informed Mr MacKinnon that it did not hold any pre-inspection reports. It provided copies of Highland Council’s school visit reports, withholding some personal data from one report.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Education Scotland had correctly responded to Mr MacKinnon’s request.

[2014] ScotIC 152 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535096

W v East Dunbartonshire Council: SIC 8 Jul 2014

SIC Planning application: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 3 March 2014, Mrs W asked East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) for information about a planning application. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs). The decision also finds that the Council failed to comply with Mrs W’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA and the EIRs.
The Commissioner has ordered the Council to comply with the requirement for review.

[2014] ScotIC 150 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535100

Meechan v East Dunbartonshire Council: SIC 8 Jul 2014

SIC Inspection records: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 6 February 2014, Morisons Solicitors, on behalf of Mr Meechan, asked East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) for maintenance and inspection records for the grounds and garden of a particular property. 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 Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs). The decision also finds that the Council failed to comply with Mr Meechan’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA/the EIRs.
The Commissioner has ordered the Council to comply with the requirement for review.

[2014] ScotIC 149 – 2014
Bailii
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535102

Bull v Renfrewshire Council: SIC 1 Jul 2014

Noise level report – On 10 February 2014, Mr Bull asked Renfrewshire Council (the Council) for a report on noise levels taken within his home. After an investigation, the Commissioner refused to accept the Council’s argument that it did not hold the information. The relevant information was provided to Mr Bull during the investigation, so the Commissioner did not require the Council to take any further action.

[2014] ScotIC 144 – 2014
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535094

Smith v City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 16 Jun 2014

SIC On 7 January 2014, Ms Smith asked the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for information relating to the budget surplus generated by its Pest Control Section. The Council informed Ms Smith that it did not hold the information she had requested.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted that the Council did not hold the information and that it had complied with the EIRs in the way it dealt with Ms Smith’s request.

Budgetary information
[2014] ScotIC 131 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535089

Nicholson v Scottish Borders Council: SIC 8 Jul 2014

SIC Final plans of new sports facilities at Peebles High School: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 8 April 2014, Ms Nicholson asked Scottish Borders Council (the Council) for information about the final plans for the new sports facilities at Peebles High School. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to the request within the timescales allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs). The decision also finds that the Council failed to comply with Ms Nicholson’s requirement for review within the timescales set down by FOISA and the EIRs.

[2014] ScotIC 148 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535092

Hall v Glasgow City Council: SIC 4 Jul 2014

SIC Costing and contract information – On 29 April 2013, Mr Hall asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information relating to ground consolidation work carried out in Strathbungo. The Council provided some information. It acknowledged that it held other information, but did not provide that information.
Following an investigation, during which further information was disclosed, the Commissioner found that the Council was entitled to withhold the remaining information. However, she also found that it had failed to provide Mr Hall with responses that complied with the EIRs.

[2014] ScotIC 146 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535095

B v Dumfries and Galloway Council: SIC 7 Jul 2014

Revision of disciplinary policy – On 15 May 2013, Mr B asked Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) for the information it held relating to the revision of its Disciplinary Policy in 2011. Following a review, the Council provided some information, but withheld the remainder on the basis that disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. During the investigation, this information was disclosed to Mr B in its entirety. The Council stated that this was all of the information that it held.
Mr B believed the Council held further information falling within the scope of his request. The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council did not hold any further information.

[2014] ScotIC 147 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535093

G v Argyll and Bute Council: SIC 2 Jun 2014

SIC Complaints regarding a named trader – On 12 December 2013, Ms G asked Argyll and Bute Council (the Council) for information concerning complaints made against a named trader. The Council withheld the information under the exemption in section 26(a) of FOISA on the basis that there was a prohibition on disclosure created by the Enterprise Act 2002 (the EA).
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council was entitled to withhold the information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under section 26(a) of FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 117 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535088

MacKinnon v Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland: SIC 2 Jul 2014

Complaint and inspection report – On 6 November 2014, Mr MacKinnon asked Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS) for information relating to a specific complaint and inspection report. In response, SCSWIS told Mr MacKinnon it did not hold some of the information he had asked for. SCSWIS also withheld other information because it considered disclosure would be substantially prejudicial to an investigation. The Commissioner accepted these arguments from SCSWIS.

[2014] ScotIC 145 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535098

Bauld v East Dunbartonshire Council: SIC 11 Jun 2014

SIC Equality Impact Assessment Report: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 20 February 2014, Mrs Bauld asked East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) for the Equality Impact Assessment Reports relating to primary class sizes and the reduction of classroom assistant ratios. 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 Commissioner has ordered the Council to comply with the requirement for review.

[2014] ScotIC 122 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535084

Cairns v East Renfrewshire Council: SIC 30 Jun 2014

Portobello Park Private Bill – On 13 January 2014, Ms Cairns asked East Renfrewshire Council (the Council) for information held relating to plans for Cowan Park which made reference to the Portobello Park private bill or the related Court of Session ruling. The Council supplied some information but withheld the remainder on the basis that it was subject to legal advice and litigation privilege.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council was entitled to withhold the information on the basis that regulation 10(5)(b) of the EIRs applied.

[2014] ScotIC 142 – 2014
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535087

Birley v City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 23 Jun 2014

Planning application – On 10 June 2013, Ms Birley asked City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for information concerning plans for a development at Malta Terrace, Edinburgh. The Council informed Ms Birley that the information was available on its website.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed information to Ms Birley and accepted that the information she had asked for had not been available on its website at the time of her request (and so it failed to deal with the request in accordance with the EIRs). By the close of the investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that the Council had disclosed all the information it held and which was covered by the request.

[2014] ScotIC 140 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535086

Staveley v Scottish Ministers: SIC 8 Jul 2014

SIC Ministerial overseas visits: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 4 November 2013, Ms Staveley asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for a breakdown of all ministerial overseas visits between February 2012 and October 2013. This decision finds that the Ministers failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Ministers failed to comply with Ms Staveley’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 151 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535101

Dunbar v Scottish Borders Council: SIC 17 Jun 2014

SIC Complaints against school departments: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 19 February 2014, Dr Dunbar asked Scottish Borders Council (the Council) for information concerning complaints made against school departments in each of the previous five years. 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 Dr Dunbar’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.
The Commissioner has ordered the Council to comply with the requirement for review.

[2014] ScotIC 133 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535067

Ostler v Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 12 Jun 2014

Cadet pension schemes: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 28 January 2014, Mr Ostler asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for information about cadet pension schemes. This decision finds that Police Scotland failed to comply with Mr Ostler’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

[2014] ScotIC 126 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535071

Stewart v Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission: SIC 15 May 2014

SIC Information about application: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 17 January 2014, Mr Stewart asked the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (the SCCRC) for information about an application he had made to the SCCRC. The decision finds that the SCCRC failed to comply with Mr Stewart’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA. Given that the SCCRC has now responded to Mr Stewart’s requirement for review, she does not require the SCCRC to take any action.

[2014] ScotIC 108 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535063

Clow Group Limited v Transport Scotland: SIC 11 Jun 2014

SIC Erskine Bridge gantry works – On 16 August 2013, solicitors acting on behalf of Clow Group Limited (Clow) asked Transport Scotland for information about payments relating to work on the underdeck gantries of the Erskine Bridge. Transport Scotland withheld information because it considered disclosure would be likely to cause substantial prejudice to the commercial interests of a third party, applying section 33(1)(b) of FOISA.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted that Transport Scotland was entitled to do this.

[2014] ScotIC 125 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535066

Lawrie v Aberdeenshire Council: SIC 11 Jun 2014

SIC ICT Service Review Reports – On 3 September 2013, Mr Lawrie asked Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) for reports relating to a review of an ICT service. The Council withheld the information. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council was not entitled to withhold some of the information under the exemptions it had cited, and required the Council to disclose it to Mr Lawrie. Some information was correctly withheld under section 30(b)(i) and (ii) and section 38(1)(a) and (b) of FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 124 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535073

Sabato v Highland Health Board: SIC 28 May 2014

SIC Raigmore Hospital – staff recruitment: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 5 March 2014, Mr Sabato asked Highland Health Board (NHS Highland) for details of advertised posts at Raigmore Hospital in 2013-2014. This decision finds that NHS Highland 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 Highland failed to comply with Mr Sabato’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.
The Commissioner has ordered NHS Highland to comply with the equirement for review.

[2014] ScotIC 115 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535061

Sells v Aberdeenshire Council: SIC 27 May 2014

Condition of building: failure to respond to requirement for review – On 31 January 2014, Mr Sells asked Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) for information about the condition of a specified building. The decision finds that the Council failed to comply with Mr Sells’ requirement for review in accordance with FOISA and the EIRs. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the requirement for review.

[2014] ScotIC 113 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535060

Carson v City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 20 Jun 2014

SIC Cost information for Edinburgh Trams – On 27 August 2013, Mr Carson asked for information about the costs of the Edinburgh Tram project, which he described as missing from the Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee meeting papers of 15 August 2013. The Council informed Mr Carson that it did not hold any relevant information. Following a review, the Council identified relevant information, but withheld it on the basis that it was commercially confidential.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council was entitled withhold the information on that basis.

[2014] ScotIC 139 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535076

Buckland v Scottish Ministers: SIC 4 Jun 2014

SIC Cost of Vale of Leven Inquiry: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 14 February 2014, Ms Buckland asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information about the cost of the Vale of Leven Inquiry. This decision finds that the Ministers failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Ministers failed to comply with Ms Buckland’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 120 – 2014
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535068

Hutcheon v Scottish Ministers (2): SIC 23 May 2014

SIC Ministerial dealings with Entrepreneurial Spark: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 28 December 2013, Mr Hutcheon asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information on the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning’s visits to Entrepreneurial Spark’s Ayrshire and Edinburgh Hatcheries, and for correspondence between the Minister and that organisation. This decision finds that the Ministers failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Ministers failed to comply with Mr Hutcheon’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 112 – 2014
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535065

Bevington v Scottish Ministers: SIC 16 Jun 2014

SIC Comments about the Northern Isles Ferry Service: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 5 February 2014, Mr Bevington asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information relating to the Northern Isles Ferry Service. This decision finds that the Ministers failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Ministers failed to comply with Mr Bevington’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.
As the Ministers complied with the requirement for review during the investigation the Commissioner does not require any action to be taken in response to these breaches.

[2014] ScotIC 129 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535078

Taylor v Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 30 May 2014

SIC On 22 November 2013, Mr Taylor asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (the Police) for website forum exchanges relating to a specified complaint. Following a review, the Police notified Mr Taylor that they would neither confirm nor deny whether any such information existed or was held. Following an investigation, the Commissioner concluded that the Police were not entitled to do this.

[2014] ScotIC 116 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535062

Taylor v City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 17 Jun 2014

Ensuring compliance with Human Rights legislation – On 19 August 2013, Mr Taylor asked the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) for a copy of a letter and information which would show how the Council ensured that its procedures for dealing with taxi licensing and complaints about taxi / private hire drivers are compliant with Human Rights legislation. The Council withheld legal advice which fell within scope of the second part of the request.
During the investigation, the Council disclosed a copy of the requested letter.
The Commissioner found that the Council was entitled to withhold the legal advice under section 36(1) of FOISA, but that the letter provided to Mr Taylor during the investigation should have been disclosed at an earlier stage.

[2014] ScotIC 132 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535075

Picken v Scottish Ministers: SIC 11 Jun 2014

SIC ‘Team Scotland’ visit to Chicago and the Ryder Cup: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 28 January 2014, Mr Picken asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information about accommodation arrangements for officials and Ministers attending visits to Chicago and the Ryder Cup. This decision finds that the Ministers failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Ministers failed to comply with Mr Picken’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 123 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535069

Quinn v Assessor for Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board: SIC 16 Jun 2014

SIC Assessor’s role and salary: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 25 January 2014, Mr Quinn asked the Assessor for Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board (the Assessor) for information about the Assessor’s role and who paid Assessors’ salaries. This decision finds that the Assessor 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 Assessor failed to comply with Mr Quinn’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.
The Commissioner has ordered the Assessor to comply with the requirement for review.

[2014] ScotIC 130 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535070

Gill v Audit Scotland: SIC 25 Jun 2014

SIC Auditors’ report – On 5 August 2013, Mr Gill asked Audit Scotland for a copy of the external auditors’ report on the handling of a complaint by Scottish Borders Council (the Council). Audit Scotland provided some information, withholding the rest on the basis that it was personal data and disclosure would breach the first data protection principle.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Audit Scotland dealt with Mr Gill’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 141 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535074

Hutcheon v Scottish Ministers: SIC 23 May 2014

SIC Communications on policy and energy meetings between the First Minister and Iberdrola: Failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 24 December 2013, Mr Hutcheon asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for communications between the First Minister and the Chairman of Iberdrola on issues relating to policy and energy, and meetings between the Scottish Government and the company. This decision finds that the Ministers failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Ministers failed to comply with Mr Hutcheon’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 110 – 2014
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535064

Mclean v Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body: SIC 10 Jun 2014

SIC Details of an allegation: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 6 January 2014, Mr McLean asked the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (the SPCB) for information about action taken by the SPCB in relation to correspondence with a member of staff.
This decision finds that the SPCB failed to respond to Mr Mclean’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 121 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535077

X v Police Investigations and Review Commissioner: SIC 13 Jun 2014

Information contained in a review file – On 7 March 2013, Mr X asked the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) for information contained in a review file. PIRC disclosed Mr X’s own personal data to him in terms of its obligations under the DPA. PIRC withheld the remaining information under the exemptions in sections 30(b)(i) and 38(1)(b) of FOISA.
The Commissioner found that PIRC was entitled to withhold the information under the exemptions in sections 30(b)(i) and 38(1)(b).

[2014] ScotIC 127 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535082

X v Dunbritton Housing Association Ltd: SIC 2 Jun 2014

SIC Transfer of the Brown Street Complex, Haldane by West Dunbartonshire Council: failure to respond to request for review – On 21 July 2013, Mr X asked Dunbritton Housing Association Ltd (Dunbritton) for information relating to the transfer of shops and flats in Brown Street, Haldane by West Dunbartonshire Council. Dunbritton informed Mr X that it was not covered by the EIRs and failed to respond to his subsequent requirement for review.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that Dunbritton was a Scottish public authority for the purposes of the EIRs and that some of the withheld information comprised environmental information. She found that Dunbritton had failed to comply with the EIRs by informing Mr X that it was not covered by the EIRs and by failing to carry out a review.
The Commissioner required Dunbritton to carry out a review and to notify Mr X of the outcome in line with regulation 16 of the EIRs.

[2014] ScotIC 118 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535081

Edwards v Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 14 May 2014

Arrest of two filmmakers: Menie Estate – On 31 October 2012, Mr Edwards asked the Chief Constable of Police Scotland (the Police) for information about the arrest of two filmmakers at the Menie Estate. The Police withheld the information on the basis that it was exempt under FOISA.
The Commissioner investigated Mr Edward’s application. During the investigation, the Police disclosed further information. Following the investigation, the Commissioner found that the Police were entitled to withhold the remaining information under sections 34(1) and 38(1)(b) of FOISA as it comprised, respectively, information held by the Police for the purposes of a criminal investigation, and personal data, disclosure of which would breach the first data protection principle.

[2014] ScotIC 106 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535059

Christison v Scottish Ministers: SIC 23 May 2014

SIC Cost of First Minister’s trip to China: failure to respond within statutory timescales. On 8 January 2014, Mr Christison asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information about the total cost incurred on the First Minister’s trip to China. This decision finds that the Ministers failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Ministers failed to comply with Mr Christison’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 111 – 2014
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535056

Quinn v Scottish Ministers: SIC 23 May 2014

SIC Notification to Parliament: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 22 January 2014, Mr Quinn asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) if the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment had notified the Parliament about certain matters concerning his office. This decision finds that the Ministers failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Ministers failed to comply with Mr Quinn’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2014] ScotIC 109 – 2014
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535055

Wilson v NHS National Services Scotland: SIC 27 May 2014

Compromise agreements – On 13 December 2013, Mr Wilson asked NHS National Services Scotland (NHSNSS) for information relating to compromise agreements with staff leaving the NHS. In relation to part 1 of the request, NHSNSS informed Mr Wilson that it did not hold the information. NHSNSS informed Mr Wilson that complying with the other parts of his request would cost in excess of the andpound;600 limit set by the relevant Fees Regulations and, therefore, it was not obliged to comply with them.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that NHSNSS had complied with FOISA in dealing with Mr Wilson’s request.

[2014] ScotIC 114 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535058

J v Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 15 May 2014

SIC Documentary Series ‘Crime Scenes Scotland’: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 4 November 2013, Mr J asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for information about the production of the BBC documentary series ‘Crime Scenes Scotland’. This decision finds that Police Scotland failed to respond to the request and requirement for review within the timescales allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

[2014] ScotIC 107 – 2014
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535057

Hillingdon London Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 20 Aug 2019

The complainant has requested information about costs associated with the London Borough of Hillingdon’s in-house legal services department. Some information was provided but the remainder of the request was refused because responding to it would have exceeded the cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough was entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. However, she also finds that the London Borough failed to discharge its section 16 duty to provide adequate advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help him refine his request such that it falls within the cost limit.
FOI 16: Complaint upheld FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

[2019] UKICO fs50827483
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.643327

Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 19 Oct 2021

The complainant requested from Avon and Somerset Police email correspondence and related meeting papers between Avon and Somerset Police and employees of Reach PLC between 20/3/2021 and 05/04/2021. By the date of this notice Avon and Somerset Police had not provided a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Avon and Somerset Police has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Avon and Somerset Police 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. Avon and Somerset Police 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-127473
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.669606

London Borough of Hillingdon (Local Government): ICO 22 Jul 2019

The complainant has requested information on the London Borough of Hillingdon’s (‘the Council’) reliance on the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 to withhold specific information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council inappropriately relied on section 21(1) in the first instance whilst later creating a spreadsheet to provide the requested information. The Commissioner finds a procedural breach of section 17(1) in not providing a refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner therefore does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 21: Complaint upheld

[2019] UKICO fs50803418
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.643232

University of Cambridge (Education): ICO 6 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested information relating to 11+ tests provided by the Centre for Evaluating and Monitoring (CEM). The CEM is part of the University of Cambridge. The University refused the request in accordance with section 14 (vexatious requests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the University was therefore entitled to rely upon section 14 to refuse it. The Commissioner requires no further steps.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-93715
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.669678

Shrewsbury Town Council (Local Government): ICO 15 Oct 2021

The complainant requested from Shrewsbury Town Council, statements considered by an independent investigation commissioned by Shrewsbury Town Council into the way in which it sold public owned land to a private developer. Shrewsbury Town Council refused the request on the grounds the information was not held by itself for its own purposes or by the independent investigator on its behalf. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental as defined by the EIR and is held by Shrewsbury Town Council under Regulation 3(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that the Council breached Regulations 5(1) and 5(2) by incorrectly applying Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR and not disclosing the requested information within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information.
FOI 1: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-110285
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.669668

London School of Economics and Political Science (Decision Notice): ICO 24 Jul 2012

The complainant has requested information about the internal disciplinary hearing of a member of academic staff at the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE disclosed some information, but withheld the remaining information under the third party personal information exemption [sections 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i)]. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LSE has correctly relied upon sections 40(2) and 40(3)(a)(i) to withhold most of the outstanding information. However, in relation to one of the requests the Commissioner considers that this exemption does not apply.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50423159
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.529641

Snowdonia National Park Authority (Decision Notice): ICO 11 Jan 2011

The complainant requested information received by the Authority from members of the public in relation to the threat of a tree being felled. The Authority refused the request on the basis of the exception at regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that the information was correctly withheld on the basis of regulation 12(5)(f). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.f – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FER0347484
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.530172

Health and Safety Executive (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Oct 2012

The complainant has requested full unedited sets of minutes of meetings held over a 12 month period (March 2010-March 2011) of the HSE’s Senior Management Team. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE has correctly applied the exemptions set out in sections 35 and 36 of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50417532
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.529917

Devon and Cornwall Constabulary (Decision Notice): ICO 22 Nov 2012

The complainant has requested information concerning police investigations into allegations that he had made about fraud and false conveyancing of land. Devon and Cornwall Police originally refused to confirm or deny whether it held the information requested under section 40(5) of the FOIA. Devon and Cornwall Police latterly applied section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA to a further similar request by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Devon and Cornwall Police (the Police) have handled both requests in accordance with the FOIA and requires no further steps to be taken.

[2012] UKICO FS50402849
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.530001