The complainant asked the IPCC to provide a full staff list to include the positions held and contact details. The public authority initially sought to provide this information as a personal disclosure only. It later disclosed most of the information but refused to disclose the remainder using the exemptions under sections 40(2) (personal information) and 38 (health and safety) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 40(2) is engaged and that disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act in some cases but not in others. He also finds that the exemption at section 38 is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs that in disclosure. The complaint is partially upheld. The public authority’s handling of the request also resulted in breaches of certain procedural requirements of the Act as identified in this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 38 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50470507
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.529971

The complainant submitted two requests for information relating to the sale of the former Hamworthy First School site in Hamworthy. The council provided some of the requested information but refused to provide other information, citing the exemptions for legal professional privilege, information provided in confidence and personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in relation to request 1, the council has failed to demonstrate that the exemptions for information provided in confidence and commercial interests are engaged but that it has correctly applied the exemption for legal professional privilege. The Commissioner has also decided that, in the case of both requests, the council failed to respond within the time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under the exemptions for information provided in confidence (section 41) and commercial interests (section 43(2)).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50459623
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.530037

The complainant submitted a request for information about properties that had been advertised for employment uses, or were the subject of applications for a change of use under various Council policies. The Council initially attempted to levy a charge for this information. Subsequently, the Council provided the complainant with some information but informed him that if he wished to collate additional information, he could do so himself using publicly available documents. The Council has informed the Commissioner that it would be ‘too costly’ to comply with the complainant’s request but has not applied an exception to the requested information. The Commissioner considers that the Council has not responded fully to the complainant’s request by simply directing him to public records. The Commissioner found that the information requested would, if held, be environmental information and should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner requires the public authority to either provide the information or issue a valid refusal notice that complies with regulation 14 of the EIR within 35 days of the date of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50292000
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.530170

The complainant has requested information relating to any plans for securing the border between Scotland and England in the event of Scottish independence. The public authority has neither confirmed nor denied holding any information by virtue of the exemptions at sections 23(5), 24(2), 35(3) and 36(3) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner has concluded that the public authority is entitled to rely on 23(5) and 24(2) as a basis upon which to refuse to confirm whether or not it holds the information requested. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 23 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 24 – Complaint Not upheld

[2012] UKICO FS50450276
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.530016

The complainant requested information relating to a planning enforcement file. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the public authority has now disclosed a large tranche of the requested information to the complainant. This decision relates to the remaining tranche of the requested information, namely a) complaints correspondence; b) legal advice: and c) site photographs taken as part of the public authority’s investigation. The Commissioner has decided that a) the public authority has legitimately withheld the identity of the complainants but the Commissioner disagrees with its basis for doing so; b) the public authority has legitimately withheld the legal advice but the Commissioner disagrees with its basis for doing so; and c) the public authority has contravened the requirements of the EIR in withholding the site photographs. The Commissioner has also decided that the public authority’s initial response to the complainant’s information request did not comply with its obligations under EIR Regulation 14(3)(b) in that it did not provide an explanation of the public interest arguments it had considered in responding to this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FER0070849
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533517

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

This decision considers whether the Scottish Ambulance Service Board (the SASB) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to information request made by Mr R.

[2009] ScotIC 115 – 2009
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.434066

Mr K requested information relating to allegations that he believed to have been made by one named person against another from the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police (Strathclyde Police). Strathclyde Police refused to confirm whether it held the information requested in terms of section 18 of FOISA. Following a review in which this decision was upheld, Mr K remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Strathclyde Police had dealt with Mr K’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.

[2008] ScotIC 003 – 2008
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.434109

Greenbelt Group Ltd. (Greenbelt) requested from the Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police (Central Scotland Police) verification of whether or not Central Scotland Police had received a specified document or file. Central Scotland Police responded by refusing to reveal whether the information requested by Greenbelt existed or was held by them, in terms of section 18 of FOISA. Following a review, Greenbelt remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Central Scotland Police had dealt with Greenbelt’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He did not require Central Scotland Police to take any action.

[2009] ScotIC 142 – 2009
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.434087

The complainant has requested information on the council’s process for reporting decisions of the ICO, planning committee and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the LGSCO) to its councillors and committees. The council said that there was no set process that could be disclosed but provided a number of links to the websites of the ICO and the LGSCO where relevant information could be accessed. It applied section 21 on the basis that the information was already available to the complainant via these means. On review it provided a link to the records of its planning committee meetings and to its Audit and Governance committee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 21 to refuse the request for information included within the links which were already available to the complainant. She has however decided that the council was not correct to rely on section 21 regarding information falling within the scope of the request about its Scrutiny and Executive Committee. She has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) in that it did not provide access links to all of the information requested within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To issue a fresh response, specifically regarding information falling within the scope of the request which has been reported to the Scrutiny and Executive Committee. The council should not seek to rely upon section 21 again to refuse this part of the request in its new response.
FOI 21: Complaint partly upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2020] UKICO fs50893369
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.653936

The complainant requested information from Leicestershire Police relating to tribunal decisions arising from penalty charge notices issued by local authorities in relation to police vehicles. Leicestershire Police denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Leicestershire Police does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

[2020] UKICO fs50911370
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.653765

The complainant has requested information relating to the Heywood South Link Road J19 M62 planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, Rochdale Borough 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

[2019] UKICO fs50830213
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.643516

Allowed

[2020] UKFTT 2019 – 0279 (GRC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.649630

The complainant submitted a number of requests to Surrey County Council (the Council) seeking information about library staff. The Council provided the majority of the information requested but refused to disclose the number of staff who had received ‘departure payments’ when leaving the Council and also refused to disclose the total cost of these departure payments. The Council argued that both pieces of information were exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council was entitled to rely on this exemption to withhold both pieces of information.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50607698
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.561798

The complainant has requested information pertaining to the funding of the government’s Work Programme (South West). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (‘DWP’) has correctly relied on section 43(2) to withhold the requested information.
FOI 43: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50593297
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.561752

The complainant requested information relating to child sexual exploitation. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) refused the request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS cited section 12(1) correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with this request.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50608637
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.561747

The complainant has requested minutes of meetings of the Stoke-on-Trent Safeguarding Board and of any sub-committee meetings attended by Stoke-on-Trent City Council (the ‘Council’) representatives to that Board. The Council argued that it does not hold this information for the purposes of the FOIA (section 3 refers). It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the information for the purposes of the FOIA. No steps are required. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50566663
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.555858

[2015] UKICO FS50557557
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.555601

The complainant has requested the audio recording of a council meeting. Bridgnorth Town Council disclosed some of the information but withheld other information under the exemption for personal data, section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bridgnorth Town Council has: Failed to demonstrate that section 40(2) of the FOIA is engaged and, failed to provide information in accordance with section 1(1) and section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested audio recording in its entirety. 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 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 40: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50589849
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.555889

The complainant has requested a copy of the audio recording of a Human Resources Committee meeting. Harpenden Town Council said that the complainant could listen to a recording of the meeting at its offices, but could not make a copy, and provided a link to the draft minutes of the meeting. The Commissioner has decided that it was not appropriate for Harpenden Town Council to refer to the requirements of section 11 of the FOIA in this case. He has also decided that Harpenden Town Council breached section 1(1)(b) of the FOIA by not communicating the requested information to the complainant. However, as the requested information has since been destroyed, the Commissioner cannot order any steps requiring Harpenden Town Council to comply with section 1(1)(b) of the FOIA in this case. Therefore he requires no further action to be taken in respect of this request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 11: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583449
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.555807

The complainant requested information from Salford City Council (the Council) relating to its councillors and the Mayor of Salford. The Council initially refused the requests as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). After an internal review the Council provided some of the relevant information it held, refused parts of the request under section 40(2) of the Act (third party personal data), and stated some of the requests did not meet the definition of a request as per section 8 of the Act. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council dropped its use of section 40(2) and provided the relevant information where held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct in its view that some requests were not valid as per section 8, and that on the balance of probabilities it is unlikely that any further relevant information is held. The Council breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act due to the delay in providing the complainant with the information for request 16 that was originally withheld under section 40(2). As the information has now been provided no steps are required.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 8: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 14: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50558958
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.555527

The complainant submitted a request to Sunderland City Council (the Council) about the campaign to relocate the sailing vessel ‘City of Adelaide’ to Sunderland. The Council determined that the request was vexatious and refused it on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council is entitled to refuse the request on this basis. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50565874
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.555532

The complainant has requested financial information for the last five years from Leybourne Parish Council (the council). The council initially relied on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information as it considered that the cost of providing it would be excessive. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council changed its position and determined that the request was vexatious and that section 14 therefore applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on section 14 and so does not require it to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0079 allowed.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50548837
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.555106

The complainant has requested copies of papers on an investigation by Monitor into the performance of King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The Trust identified several documents containing information within the scope of the request and considered the information to be exempt on the basis of sections 31, 33, 41, 21, 36 and 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) with 31(2)(c) to the withheld information and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50586000
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.555830

The complainant requested information about a particular planning application. The Council initially treated the request under the FOIA and stated it was relying on section 21 of the FOIA. In its internal review response the Council confirmed that it had reconsidered the request under the EIR. It provided the information requested, subject to some personal data being redacted under regulation 13 of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed some of the information it had originally redacted. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 13 to the remaining withheld information. He does not require any steps to be taken.
EIR 13(1): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0571614
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.555846

The complainant requested information about a tree felling matter. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR because it did not respond within the 20 working days that is a requirement of the Regulations. The HSE has now provided a response and the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
EIR 5(2): Upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0603268
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.556695

The complainant requested information relating to all communications between certain dates held by, or originated by, Queens Park Community Council (QPCC). He also requested details of complaints made against him. The Commissioner’s decision is that QPCC does not hold some of the requested information and is entitled to apply section 40(1) FOIA (personal information) to withhold the remainder. However, he identified a series of procedural shortcomings on the part of the public authority relating to delay (sections 1 and 10) and failure to issue a valid refusal notice (section 17). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50578076
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.555844

Undertakings
A follow-up has been completed to provide an assurance that The Council of the Isles of Scilly has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed 21 August 2014.

[2015] UKICO 2015-14
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.553746

The complainant has requested from London Borough of Islington (the ‘Council’) information in relation to the sale of specific commercial premises. There are two parts of this request. The Council applied section 14(2) of the FOIA to the first request for information. To the second request, the Council disclosed some of the requested information and applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the remaining part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied upon section 40(2) of the FOIA to the second request. However, the Commissioner has dismissed the Council’s use of section 14(2) of the FOIA to the first request and he orders the Council to issue a fresh response to part 1 of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take issue a fresh response to part 1 of his request as detailed in paragraph 12 under FOIA without relying on section 14(2). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2014/0045 withdrawn.
FOI 14: Upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50555868
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.555099

Undertakings
A follow-up has been completed to provide an assurance that South West Ambulance Trust has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed 1 August 2014.

[2015] UKICO 2015-17
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.553751

ICO The complainant requested information from the public authority relating to complaints of mistreatment/neglect/abuse received by the authority in respect of its premises at Morriston and Gorseinon. The public authority responded by supplying the complainant with the authority’s ‘Complaints Performance Management Report’ for the period of July 2004 to September 2004. The complainant indicated to the public authority that the report was insufficient and further qualified his request should cover (a) copies of actual complaints files retained by the authority and (b) all copy files held by the authority for a ten (10) year period preceding the request. The public authority then refused the request by virtue of section 12 stating that the cost of complying would exceed the ‘appropriate limit.’ The Commissioner sought evidence to show that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit, and a member of his staff visited the public authority to view its record management systems. The Commissioner decided, in this case, the authority applied the Act appropriately by refusing the request by virtue of section 12.The complainant has alleged that the public authority did not provide an appropriate level of advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of the Act. The Commissioner has therefore considered whether the provision of advice and assistance was adequate for the purposes of the Act. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority satisfied the duty to provide such advice and assistance under section 16 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50086076
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533627

ICO The complainant requested the advice given to a minister who subsequently confirmed a bye-law in relation to salmon fishing on the River Teign. The request was correctly handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Access to the information in question was refused on the grounds that the advice constituted internal communications and that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The Commissioner has reviewed the information in question and considered the arguments proposed, but does not agree that the balance lies in favour of withholding the information. DEFRA are required to release the information within 35 working days
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.4.e – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FER0088372
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533616

ICO The complainant requested the public authority to provide certain street name and area details for children who lived furthest away from a particular college and who had been admitted to that college in accordance with the college’s admission criteria. The public authority whilst providing the details of the relevant areas refused to provide details of the street names relying upon an exemption under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘section 40(2)’) indicating that the information constituted personal information in respect of which there was an absolute exemption against disclosure. The Commissioner considered the papers in the case and corresponded with both parties as a result of which he finds that the public authority incorrectly applied the section 40(2) exemption.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50092601
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533608

ICO The complainant requested information concerning submissions made to the Scott Inquiry. The public authority stated that it was not possible to confirm or deny whether information relevant to the request was held without exceeding the relevant cost limit of andpound;600 and therefore that section 12 provides that it is not obliged to do so. The public authority carried out a search limited to the areas of its records which it felt were most likely to contain information relevant to the request. However, the public authority was not able to locate any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner accepts that in this case to confirm or deny whether the public authority holds information of the description outlined in the request would in itself exceed the appropriate limit. Therefore the Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the Act. No further steps on the part of the public authority are required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50131073
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533621

ICO The complainant requested details of the complaints histories of six named doctors from the General Medical Council (the ‘GMC’). The GMC refused this request under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the basis that it constituted the personal data of the doctors in question and that to release the information would breach the data protection principles. It further argued that it would also breach their human rights and therefore a statutory prohibition applied under section 44 of the Act. During the course of the investigation the GMC also submitted that it owed a duty of confidence to the doctors involved and that, as a result, an exemption under section 41 of the Act applied. It also submitted that a section 31 exemption may be applicable as disclosure of the requested information could harm the GMC’s ability to effectively regulate doctors. Having considered both parties submissions and conducted a thorough investigation, the Commissioner found that the exemption under section 40 of the Act was applicable and that the GMC had therefore been right to withhold the information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50064698
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533619

ICO The complainant requested information related to the Scott Inquiry. The public authority responded that it does not hold this information. Having considered the representations of the both the complainant and the public authority, the Commissioner accepts that no information falling within the scope of the information request is held by the public authority. Therefore the Commissioner considers that the public authority dealt with the complainant’s request for information in accordance with section 1(1) of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50131059
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533618

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the MHRA for information relating to the safety of Engerix B (the Hepatitis B Vaccination). The public authority advised that it would be unable to supply all the information requested as to do so would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ under section 12(1) of the Act. Having investigated this case the Commissioner is satisfied that the application of section 12(1) by the public authority was correct. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50088131
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533606

ICO The complainant asked Defra for a copy of the list showing details of the producers to whom the farm ID numbers on eggs relate. Defra initially refused to provide the information, saying that it was personal information covered by the Data Protection Act. Defra subsequently decided that the request should have been dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act, but still declined to release the information, citing sections 38 and 43(2) of that Act. The Commissioner decided that section 38 was engaged in relation to the information sought and that the public interest lay in favour of maintaining that exemption. He also decided that section 40 was engaged in respect of certain personal information. Since those exemptions covered all of the information in question, he saw no need to consider whether section 43(2) was also engaged. The Commissioner welcomed Defra’s agreement to release to the complainant a list relating farm ID numbers to particular counties. However, he concluded that Defra had breached section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 38 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50089403
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533617

ico The complainant asked the BBC how much its staging of the Children in Need charity appeal programme cost in 2005; how much of the money raised was spent on televising the appeal and how much individual presenters and other personalities including Terry Wogan, Eamon Holmes and Natasha Kaplinsky were paid. The complainant also requested a list of all music acts which were paid for their services on the night. The BBC refused the request on the grounds that it fell outside the scope of the Act. The Commissioner decided that the Act did apply. He also decided that the exemptions under sections 40 and 43 of the Act which were submitted by the BBC did not exempt the information from disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50102474
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533613

The complainant requested access to information on the files relating to another individual, held by the Northumbria Police. Following an investigation of the complaint, the Commissioner has decided that the information requested by the complainant constitutes the personal data of another individual in accordance with Section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 and consequently, the information is exempt under Section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner is satisfied that the information should not be released and that the public authority therefore dealt with the complainants request in accordance with part 1 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50090750
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1998 1(1) 40(2)
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533589

ICO The complainant requested to be provided with certain copies of legal advice obtained by the public authority. The public authority declined relying upon an exemption under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act (‘section 42’) claiming legal professional privilege and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner has considered the public authority’s file and the legal advice in question as a result of which he is satisfied that the public authority has properly applied section 42.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50076356
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533574

ICO Between 25 September and 30 November 2005 the complainant made four requests for information to Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council relating to aircraft noise resulting from aircraft movements at Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield recorded by the fixed Noise Monitoring Terminal at Bawtry. DMBC refused the complainant’s requests, stating that it did not hold the requested information, because it could ‘only be accessed by a phone line to a third party’s computer’. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that at the time the requests were made, DMBC
Held: The requested information under regulation 3(2)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and that DMBC failed to comply with regulation 5(1) and (2), regulation 9 and regulation 14. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose to the complainant the relevant sections of a detailed noise report relating to November 2005.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 9 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50102786
Bailii
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 3(2)(a)
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533599

ICO The complainant requested copies of the invitation to tender that had been issued to four bidders for a major rail franchise. The public authority initially withheld the information under section 43 on the basis that its disclosure would prejudice its commercial interests and under section 22, as it intended to publish the information at a later date. At internal review the public authority also applied section 36 -‘ information likely to prejudice the conduct of public affairs. The public authority did release this information to the complainant once the franchise had been awarded and the public authority perceived it was no longer commercially sensitive. The Commissioner found that section 43 did not apply and that although section 36 was engaged, the exemption could not be maintained in the public interest. In relation to section 22 the Commissioner found that there was no settled intention to publish the information at the time the request was received and so the exemption could not be relied on. In light of this the Commissioner found the public authority had failed to provide the information within the 20 working days allowed by the Act. This constitutes a breach of section 10.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 43 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 22 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50081543
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533596

ICO The complainant requested a copy of a report into the National Health Service University, known as the Wells Report, which was withheld under section 33 (audit functions). The department also cited sections 35 (formulation of government policy), 40 (personal information), and 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner has decided that these exemptions have been incorrectly applied, and ordered that the report be released within 35 days. The department also failed to respond to the request within the twenty working day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 33 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50070878
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533598

ICO The complainant requested information from the public authority related to two schemes for sponsoring overseas doctors for medical training in the United Kingdom. The complainant was not satisfied with the information he received. After investigating the complaint the Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority has not withheld any information from the complainant and consequently does not require the public authority to take any further action. However, the Commissioner recognises that the public authority breached section 10 of the Act by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50122830
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533594

ICO The complainant asked the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) to provide information about both the sale price of two London properties and the dates on which they had been sold. Information on one property was not held, and that relating to the other was withheld under s.44, with the Commissioners for the Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA) and the Taxes Management Act 1970 acting as a statutory bar – VOA stated that this made it an offence for their officials to disclose information about an individual’s tax affairs without the taxpayer’s authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from release, but that section 40 was more applicable to some of the information.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50090387
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533582

The complainant requested information on consolatory payments issued by the CSA, and complained to the Commissioner on the grounds that the response was outside 20 working day time limit, and that not all relevant information was provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CSA did provide all the information it held, but that the response came outside the 20 working day limit, in breach of section 10 of the Act. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50101916
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533525

[2006] UKICO FS50067986
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533554

[2006] UKICO FS50073128
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533555

[2006] UKICO FS50085375
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533557

ICO The complainant requested information relating to a meeting that took place in June 2005 between Whitehall Advisers and Lord Drayson, the Under-Secretary for Defence and Minister for Defence Procurement. The MoD responded by providing a broad description of the information held, indicating among other things that no formal note of the meeting had been taken. Having inspected the information which has been withheld the Commissioner agrees that disclosure would be prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs and that the public interest does not require disclosure. He also agrees that some of the information is exempt by virtue of the provision of the Act relating to personal information. The MoD also cited other exemptions which the Commissioner does not accept apply in this case; however, this does not affect the Commissioner’s general finding which is that the MoD has dealt with the request in accordance with the Act. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50102714
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533518

ICO The complainant requested information concerning complaints made about a specific company. The OFT responded, stating that the information was exempt under section 43 (commercial interests) and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. When the complaint was raised with the OFT they also invoked section 44 (statutory prohibitions) as the information was provided under the Enterprise Act 2002. The Commissioner is satisfied that the section 44 is engaged and that the public authority need to take no further action, and so has not made a decision on the application of the exemption under section 43 as part of this complaint. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50090136
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533522

ICO The complainant made a request for information about Gateway Reviews of the identity cards programme which had been carried out by the OGC, who refused to provide the information on the grounds that it related to the formulation and development of government policy (section 35) and that disclosure would prejudice the exercise of its audit functions (sections 33). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public interest lies in the release of the information and that its release will not prejudice the exercise of its audit functions. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 33 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50070196
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533523

ICO The complainant requested the sight documentation relating to the placement of a BT pole and land ownership. The council offered photocopies of the documentation at 10 pence per sheet but refused sight of the information. The Commissioner has decided that the Council should have given preference to the complainant’s request to see the information, and has therefore upheld the complaint.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 11 – Complaint Upheld

[2006] UKICO FS50069396
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533371